A Comparative Evaluation of Group and Private Piano ...
Transcript of A Comparative Evaluation of Group and Private Piano ...
A Comparative Evaluation of Group and Private Piano Instruction
on the Musical Achievements of Young Beginners
Pai-Yu Chiu
A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctoral of Music and Arts
University of Washington
2017
Reading Committee:
Craig Sheppard, Chair
Donna Shin
Steven J. Morrison
Program Authorized to Offer Degree:
Music
iii
University of Washington
Abstract
A Comparative Evaluation of Group and Private Piano Instruction
on the Musical Achievements of Young Beginners
Pai-Yu Chiu
Chair of the Supervisory Committee:
Craig Sheppard
School of Music
This study compares the relative influence of group and individual piano instruction on the
musical achievements of young beginning piano students between the ages of 5 to 7. It also
investigates the potential influence on these achievements of an individual teacher’s preference
for either mode of instruction, children’s age and gender, and identifies relationships between
these three factors and the two different modes of instruction. Forty-five children between the
ages of 5 to 7 without previous musical training completed this empirical study, which consisted
of 24 weekly piano instruction and a posttest evaluating their musical achievements. The 45
participants included 25 boys and 20 girls. The participants were comprised of twenty-seven 5-
year-olds, nine 6-year-olds, and nine 7-year-old participants. Twenty-two children participated in
group piano instruction and 23 received private instruction. After finishing 24 weekly lessons,
participants underwent a posttest evaluating: (1) music knowledge, (2) music reading, (3) aural
iv
discrimination, (4) kinesthetic response, and (5) performance skill. Results of MANOVA support
the main hypothesis that relationship of the two different instructional modes and musical
achievements is null. However, significant interaction exists between the mode of instruction
and the participants’ age, especially within the achievement of kinesthetic response. In this
category, children aged 5 who participated in group instruction outperformed peers receiving
individual instruction. By contrast, children at ages 6 and 7 receiving individual instruction
outperformed their peers undergoing group instruction. Similar trends were revealed in the other
musical achievements. This result may be influenced by: (1) different attitudes towards group
work between children both younger and older than age 6, (2) growth of self-consciousness, (3)
changes in children’s sociability, and (4) different achievement motivation. Differences in
teacher and gender did not alter the non-significant relationship between modes of instruction
and musical achievements.
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my dissertation supervisor, Professor Craig
Sheppard, for his supervision, trust and encouragement.
I am hugely indebted to Professor Steven Morrison for introducing me to the field of quantitative
research and for guiding me through the process of statistical analysis used in this study.
I am grateful to Professor Donna Shin for her valuable advice on this dissertation.
I would like to thank my editor, Dr. Timothy Kinsella, who helped me organize my ideas and
contents.
To Joseph Dougherty, the second teacher in this study, I am deeply thankful for your remarkable
devotion to this research and your patience with young children.
To Rose Cheng, my colleague, thank you for spending hours to grade the posttest.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from La Belle Music Studio and all my friends who
gave me lots of encouragement.
Lastly, and most of all, I would like to thank my parents, my brother, Jeff, and my best friend,
Claire. Without your long term support over these years, it would have been impossible for me
to complete this dissertation. I love you.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
Need for the Study ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review and Development of Piano Instruction ............................ 13
Critical reviews of related research .................................................................................................... 13
Development of Piano Instruction from the Late 18th Century to the Present .............................. 23
I. Prior to the Late 18th Century ........................................................................................................................ 23
II. Instruction from the Late 18th Century to the End of the 19th Century ........................................................ 24
III. Piano Instruction in the 20th Century and Thereafter .................................................................................. 32
Chapter Three: Method ............................................................................................................. 41
Research Design .................................................................................................................................... 41
Experimental Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 44
Location and Equipment .................................................................................................................................... 44
Pilot Study .......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Recruitment of participants ................................................................................................................................ 46
Teachers ............................................................................................................................................................. 47
Class settings ...................................................................................................................................................... 48
Treatment ........................................................................................................................................................... 50
Posttest ............................................................................................................................................................... 54
Teacher Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................ 58
Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Report of Results .................................................................................................................................. 59
vii
Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 60
Outliers ............................................................................................................................................................... 61
Relationship of Instruction and Musical Achievements ..................................................................................... 62
Relationship of Teachers and Musical Achievements ........................................................................................ 63
Relationship of Participants’ Age and Musical Achievements .......................................................................... 65
Relationship of Participants’ Gender and Musical Achievements ..................................................................... 67
Interactions ......................................................................................................................................................... 68
Results of sub-items from kinesthetic response ................................................................................................. 71
Teacher Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................... 76
Chapter Five: Summary and Discussions ................................................................................. 78
Result Summary ................................................................................................................................... 78
Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 80
Instruction .......................................................................................................................................................... 80
Teachers ............................................................................................................................................................. 82
Age ..................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Gender ................................................................................................................................................................ 91
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 93
Recommendations for Teaching Strategies ........................................................................................ 98
Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 104
Suggestions for Future Studies .......................................................................................................... 106
References .................................................................................................................................. 108
Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 113
Appendix A Assent Form .................................................................................................................. 113
Appendix B Parent/Guardian Permission Form ............................................................................ 116
Appendix C Samples of Lesson Plan ................................................................................................ 120
Appendix D Posttest .......................................................................................................................... 133
Appendix E Grading Matrix ............................................................................................................ 146
Appendix F Letter to Judges Grading Sheet ................................................................................... 147
Appendix G Teacher Survey ............................................................................................................ 156
Appendix H How to Read and Understand a Boxplot ................................................................... 167
viii
List of Tables
Table 3. 1 Correlation of judges’ scores (N=45) .......................................................................... 57
Table 4. 1 Participant Distribution ................................................................................................ 59
Table 4. 2 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Group- and Privately-instructed
Students ....................................................................................................................... 63
Table 4. 3 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Students of the two Teachers .......... 64
Table 4. 4 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Participants at Age 5 and Ages 6
to 7 .............................................................................................................................. 66
Table 4. 5 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Boys and Girls ................................ 68
Table 4. 6 Interaction between Instruction and Age in Kinesthetic Response ............................. 70
Table 4. 7 Comparison of Sub-items from Kinesthetic Response between Participants at Age 5
and Ages 6 to 7 ............................................................................................................. 73
Table 4.8 Comparison of Four Sub-items from Kinesthetic Response between Participants at
Age 5 and Ages 6 to 7 .................................................................................................. 75
List of Figures
Figure 4. 1 Distribution of Five Achievements ........................................................................... 61
Figure 4.2 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between Private and Group Instruction ... 62
Figure 4.3 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between Two Teachers ........................... 64
Figure 4.4 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between 5-year-olds and 6- to 7-year-old66
Participants .................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 4. 5 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between Boys and Girls ......................... 67
Figure 4. 6 Distribution from Kinesthetic Response between instruction and age groups ........... 70
Figure 4. 7 Interaction between Instruction and Age on four sub-items in Kinesthetic Response 74
Figure 4. 8 Score Distribution of the Four Sub-items between Two Age Groups........................ 75
Figure 5. 1 Comparison Between Instruction and Age on Music Knowledge, Music Reading,
Aural Discrimination and Performance skill. ............................................................. 84
1
Chapter One
Introduction
The dominant mode of piano instruction by far is the private lesson, in which one student
at a time receives guidance from a teacher. Less common is group piano instruction, in which
two or more students receive instruction simultaneously. The current research seeks to
determine quantitatively whether one of these modes of instruction is demonstrably superior to
the other as a means of introducing the piano to young beginning students, aged 5 to 7, or if the
mode of instruction does not influence their achievements. The results of this investigation may
assist a prospective piano teacher in his or her decision to offer group instruction. If it can be
shown that group piano instruction is at least as efficient as private instruction to achieve this
goal, further considerations such as economic benefit or personal preference may then be
engaged in the determination of whether group piano instruction is a desirable and viable
pedagogy for an individual teacher. Before undertaking an exposition of the current research, I
present a brief overview of the historical emergence of group piano as a pedagogy with regard to
its underlying motivations and philosophies, and its possible advantages or disadvantages.
The development of keyboard instruction through the centuries is deeply related to the
development of society. Before the 19th century, instrumental instruction usually took place in a
familial context, as in the Bach family, which was a lineage of professional musicians, or private
instruction in elite or aristocratic families. In some cases, instruction was made available in a
master/apprentice context to individuals who showed exceptional promise. In a sense, then,
keyboard training was limited to those musicians intending to become professional keyboardists.
A keyboard player was expected to manage different keyboard instruments, improvise pieces,
accompany other instruments with figured bass, and even conduct a choir or an
2
orchestra. Therefore, keyboard treatises at that time were typically comprehensive with regard to
musicianship, but just gave general guidelines to technique.
Beginning in the early 19th century, piano builders published methods for amateurs in
order to attract new customers for their instruments. Coveted by families belonging to the newly
emergent middle-class, the market for pianos expanded greatly at this time. Meanwhile, the
flawless and flashy skills of virtuosic pianists became fashionable. By the end of the 19th
century, many published piano methods became more-or-less equivalent to a collection of
technical finger exercises intended to increase speed and strength of execution, at the expense of
musical aesthetics and other matters of musicianship (Uszler, Gordon & Mach, 1991). Examples
of such methods include the works of Charles Hanon (1820–1900), Henri Herz (1803–1888), and
Josef Pischna (1826–1896), some of which are still widely used today.
Although the piano business declined sharply in the beginning of the 20th century,
especially in Europe and the United States, piano instruction, especially in the United States,
underwent a gradual yet significant transformation and renewal allowing it to maintain its
privileged status with regard to all instrumental instruction (James & Jackson, 2000; MTNA,
2005). From the 20th century, piano instruction was no longer restricted to performance skill
training, but was increasingly considered by music educators and the public as fundamental to all
aspects of musicianship and musical knowledge. The content of contemporary piano method
books reflects this change, with reduced coverage of finger technique, and the incorporation of
such activities as singing, rote-playing, note reading, rhythmic and aural trainings,
harmonization, and creative activities (James & Jackson, 2000). Written under the influence of
early childhood education and science research during the second half of 20th century, modern
piano methods are designed with respect to a child’s cognitive ability, psychomotor
3
development, and attention span. Current piano methods also emphasize the elements of tone
production such as weight and relaxation technique, and embrace more general musicianship
skills like ear-training, musical perception, and sight-reading (Uszler, Gordon & Mach, 1991).
Learning piano in one-on-one private instruction is a long-standing tradition, and it
continues to be the main context for piano instruction in the present. Although group piano
instruction is not as popular as private instruction, it continues to serve as an enduring alternative
to or a supplement of private instruction. Responding to increasing demand for piano lessons
throughout the 19th century, instructors began to offer group piano instruction, both as a means
of accommodating the growing numbers of students, and as a means of increasing their teaching
income.
The earliest and the most well-known group piano system was established by Johann
Bernhard Logier in 1815. Although 20th century studies have demonstrated that learning
instruments with peers yields positive results, Logier’s primary motivation for his group teaching
system was merely economic. Originally established in Dublin, Logier’s schools quickly
expanded to London and later the continent. Their popularity faded just as quickly, with most of
his franchises being closed by 1822 (Loesser, 1954). However, group teaching styles did not
vanish completely with the demise of the Logier schools, with great musicians like Clara
Schumann, Franz Liszt and Felix Mendelssohn all teaching piano or other instruments in a group
setting (Parakilas, et al., 1999).
The earliest evidence of group piano instruction in the United States is seen in a letter to
the editor of The Etude magazine written in 1860 by a group of private piano teachers in Holly
Springs, Mississippi strongly opposed to this new style of teaching (Richards, 1962). By the end
of the 19th century, teaching piano in a group setting seems to have been gradually accepted in
4
the United States. Group piano instruction was offered in private studios and privately-owned
music schools. Even the United State Office of Education began to promote group piano
instruction near the turn of the 20th century (Richards, 1962).
Calvin Bernard Cady, a professor at the University of Michigan, was one of the earliest
music educators to advocate group piano instruction in the United States. Starting in 1887, Cady
wrote a series of articles addressing the pedagogy of group piano teaching. His teaching
philosophy influenced subsequent group piano teaching and earned him the title “the father of
piano class instruction” in the United States (Richards, 1962, p.28).
Cady felt that students could learn from their classmates, and that the desire for peer
approval and a spirit of emulation and even competition motivated the class to learn. Although
he was a strong advocate of group instruction, he recognized that not every student would benefit
from group piano instruction. He identified three goals essential to the success of a piano class:
(a) development of “musical thought powers” or musical ideas, (b) development of the power to
express those ideas, and (c) musical experience. In order to accomplish all three goals, Cady felt
that small classes of three students were essential. Larger classes could not provide enough time
for the third goal--musical experience. Many ideas expressed by Cady were prominent at his
time. For instance, he suggested students should not always play simultaneously because
"independent work and plenty [of it] is essential". Recognizing that “the staple ideas of one
composition are found to be common to all, only in different forms and modes of expression,”
Cady emphasized the necessity of time sufficient to investigate these common challenges in new
and different contexts in a group setting, and to develop procedures and solutions to meet them
successfully. Active listening and participation in the group, according to Cady, are necessary
for each member (Richards, 1962)
5
Shortly after Cady's articles appeared, many schools of music wrote about their success
in group teaching. For example, in 1891 Constantine Sternberg, an owner of a private school of
music in Philadelphia, wrote two articles arguing that piano classes stimulated the interest of the
average student, and that the class tuition fee brought piano instruction within the range of the
average family. Sternberg's own piano class focused on the development of musical aesthetics
rather than performance skill1 (Richards, 1962). Teachers who owned private studios also began
to experiment with group teaching. In 1896, a private teacher, Hella Prince Stockey, wrote an
article in The Etude sharing her group teaching experiences. She insisted that new students take
ten weeks of piano fundamentals in a class setting before beginning private lessons (Richards,
1962).
In 1913, American public schools began to offer class piano in order to foster
musicianship, rather than performance skill. Similar to the rise and fall of Logier's system, class
piano became prevalent in the United States for a while, and even influenced other countries, but
largely disappeared after 1930s due to the Great Depression and the World War Two. In fact,
many piano pedagogy programs at universities and colleges were originally established to train
class piano teachers (Richards, 1962). Ironically, years after the economic revival following the
Great Depression and the Second World War, and the establishment of piano pedagogy degrees,
class piano never came back to public schools. Instead, the class piano setting largely migrated
to a university setting, in which secondary piano courses provide fundamental keyboard training
to non-piano music majors and non-music major students.
In the meantime, scholars who encountered the golden period of class piano during the
first half of the 20th century and experienced the effectiveness of learning piano in a group
1 Constantine Sternberg, "Musings on Class Teaching", the Etude, IX (February, 1891), p. 29.
6
setting at first hand continued to promote the concept of teaching piano in group in their
writings. For instance, well-known piano pedagogy scholars such as Robert Pace, James
Bastein, Frances Clark, and James Lyke all advocated group piano classes, despite differing
viewpoints on how to best structure a group piano class (Fisher, 2010). Pace's system uses one
partner lesson and one large group lesson per week for the beginning piano students with an
average between age 5 to 7. Lyke suggested teaching children in small groups of four students,
twice a week: one lesson for repertoire and technique, and one lesson for training in
musicianship. Clark preferred a combination of both group and private lessons for beginning
students (Fisher, 2010).
Music educators continued to recognize group piano teaching as a significant component
of piano pedagogy, especially after the 1970s. As early as 1955, the Music Teachers National
Association (MTNA) began including group piano workshops on its national convention
program. Piano periodicals like American Music Teacher, Piano Quarterly, Keyboard
Companion, and Clavier have published many articles emphasizing group piano instruction and
addressing this topic from a variety of perspectives. From 1963 to 1977, when Robert Pace
served as director, the National Piano Foundation sponsored workshops for group piano
teaching. After Pace retired, Martha Hilley and Marguerite Miller continued the workshops
under the name of “World of Piano” seminars (Fischer, 2010).
After the 1990s, more new resources for the group piano teaching began to appear. The
first online keyboard journal, Piano Pedagogy Forum (established in January 1998), always
includes at least one article per issue specifically dedicated to group piano teaching and related
topics. In 1999, the MTNA devoted the entire Pedagogy Saturday workshop explicitly to group
teaching during its annual national conference (James & Jackson, 2000). From 2000 to present,
7
the National Group Piano and Piano Pedagogy Forum continues to meet biannually. The
conference is mainly focused on the discussion of group piano teaching at the collegiate level
(Fisher, 2010).
It is interesting that although group piano instruction has existed for about 200 years, and
its proponents have generated a significant pedagogical literature, the percentage of teachers
offering group piano lessons at the turn of the 21st century is still relatively low. According to
Suzanne Schons’s survey in 2004, of 598 piano teachers in the United States, only 8.2% taught
group lessons exclusively, while 23.3% of those surveyed taught both private and group lessons.
The vast majority—78.1%—of the surveyed teachers taught only private lessons (Schons, 2005).
A survey of some two thousand teachers made by MTNA in 2005 also reported that only one-
third of those surveyed offered group piano lessons.
One reason for their reluctance to teach in a group setting could relate to the lack of their
training in group teaching strategies at school. Victoria Leigh Johnson (2002), who investigated
topics taught in college piano pedagogy courses, found that most piano pedagogy courses did
cover both teaching privately and in a group setting, and that 83% of college piano pedagogy
courses required students to observe group instruction as well as private instruction, but only
44.21% of undergraduate piano pedagogy programs require students to teach a group class
(Johnson, 2002). In light of these discrepancies, in the conclusion of her study, Schons
suggests:
Piano pedagogy courses and professional organization should provide students
and teachers with a thorough grounding in partner/group instruction and
familiarity with its educational and financial benefits. Although most
undergraduate and graduate programs do address group teaching, it is not clear
how much those programs are helping students find practical ways to transfer
knowledge of group and partner teaching to the setting of a home studio, where
many teachers are likely to carry out their instruction. (Schons, 2005, p. 113)
8
In spite of these low percentages, the efforts made by piano pedagogical scholars on
behalf of promoting group piano instruction are not totally ineffective. Schons (2005) found
63% of the teachers younger than 46 years old in the greater New York area reported having
observed group piano instruction while at college, a rate 20% higher than teachers in older age
groups. Teachers in the youngest age group also constituted the highest percentage (34%) of
those offering group piano instruction. Schons (2005) suggests that teachers of younger
generations, having had more direct experience of group piano instruction, are consequently
more amenable to offering it.
Need for the Study
In 2010, Christopher Fisher, a professor at Ohio University, published Teaching Piano in
Groups. Fisher provides comprehensive information about group piano instruction including
class types, instruction strategies, suggestions of business/financial planning, etc. Fisher also
claims numerous benefits of group piano instruction, such as providing a dynamic and
motivational learning environment, developing critical listening skills as students listen to other
students perform and provide comments, encouraging the development of a strong rhythmic
sense through group eurhythmic activities, and providing a beneficial environment to teach
functional musicianship skills like harmonization, transposition, sight-reading and improvisation.
However, Fisher did not have evidence to prove these elements of group piano instruction would
actually positively affect the musical achievement of students. A study that provides an
objective comparison of the musical achievements of beginning students in an exclusive private
9
or group context could prove valuable to current and prospective teachers contemplating offering
group piano instruction.
In fact, three studies comparing the influence of private piano instruction and group
piano instruction on students' musical achievements exist: (a) Rita Johnson Hutcherson’s study
in 1955; (b) William Forrest Rogers’ study in 1974; and (c) Diehl’s study in 1980. In summary,
all three studies suggest that students in group instruction achieved at a level equal or superior to
their counterparts in private instruction. However, as all three studies were published more than
30 years ago, updated research is needed. Moreover, all three previous studies investigated
average-age students between the ages of 6.5 to 10. Additionally, Hutcherson investigated the
achievements of college students taking group piano. It is necessary to investigate the efficacy
of group piano instruction regarding students of other age ranges, younger and older.
Beginning in the 1980s, scientific studies (Schellenberg, 2004; Schellenbert, Harris &
Karen, 2006) began to appear demonstrating the benefits of teaching music to young children,
prompting many parents to enroll their children in piano lessons at an early age. Ann Collins, a
professor of music at Western Illinois University, writes, “It is very likely that in the next few
years, the ‘average-age beginner’ will be four instead of seven” (Lyke, Enoch & Haydon, 1996).
Meanwhile, many new piano methods dedicated specifically to preschool students (ages 4 to 7)
have been published in recent years, such as Music for Little Mozart by Christine H.
Barden, Gayle Kowalchyk and E. L. Lancaster , My First Piano Adventure by Nancy Faber and
Randell Farber, and Progressive Piano Method for Young Beginners by Gary Turner and
Andrew Scott. As no related research on students younger than 6.5 years old exists, and as a
child's first experience of musical instruction can be determinative of their future relationship to
10
musical performance, I decide to compare the relationship of two different modes of piano
instruction and very young beginners’ (between aged 5 to 7) musical achievements.
Purpose of the Study
In this study, I investigate the relative influence of group piano instruction and individual
piano instruction on the musical achievements of young beginning piano students after they take
twenty-four weekly piano lessons. Students receiving group piano instruction constituted the
experimental group, and those receiving individual instruction constituted the control group. The
age of participants (students) researched is between 5 to 7 years old with no preceding piano
education. Items considered in this study as musical learning achievements include: (a) music
knowledge, (b) music reading, (c) aural discrimination, (d) kinesthetic response, and (e)
performance skill. The working hypothesis of this study is that no significant difference exists
between the experimental and the control groups in all five musical achievements investigated.
I also considered the potential influence of teachers as another factor affecting learning
outcomes. According to Rogers’ study (1974), which employed four teachers, significant
differences in certain learning outcomes were found among the students of various teachers.
Rogers attributed these differing outcomes to the abilities of a particular teacher in giving either
group or private instruction, the methods employed by the respective teachers, and the possibly
different ways in which the students respond to each. In other words, the proclivity of a
particular teacher toward either group or private instruction may influence the results of the
experiment. To avoid the potential bias created by a single teacher, I invited another teacher
besides myself to teach half of the participants. The attitudes of both teachers regarding
11
individual preferences toward either mode of instruction, are revealed by surveys undertaken
both prior to and following the experiment (see Appendix G).
Diehl (1980) reported that group-taught students performed significantly better in sight-
reading than privately-taught students. In addition, group-taught male students significantly
outperformed privately-taught male students in both public performance and sight-reading.
Among participants at the age of 8 and older, group-taught students in Diehl’s study achieved at
higher levels than the private-taught students in sight-reading. Diehl indicates that the effect of
the two piano instruction modalities (private versus group) upon the music learning
achievements of students of different genders and age groups could be varied. Therefore, in the
present study, I briefly consider whether the relationship between instruction modality and
participants’ learning achievements differs significantly between different genders and age
groups.
Research Questions
The basic questions driving the current research are as follows:
1. Which mode of piano instruction--group or private--enables young beginners (age 5
to 7) to achieve optimally with regard to (a) music knowledge, (b) music reading, (c)
aural discrimination, (d) kinesthetic response, and (e) performance skill?
2. Does a teacher’s experience and preference of a particular mode of instruction
influence participants’ achievements?
3. Do the two examined instruction modalities influencing students' musical
achievements account for different results among different age and gender groups? As a
12
result, do students’ musical achievements differ between different age groups and gender
groups?
Organization of the Study
A summary of related literature is provided in Chapter Two, followed by a brief
discussion of the history of piano methods and instruction and how these have changed and
developed throughout the past three centuries. A description of the methods and procedures of
the research is presented in Chapter Three, and the results of the analysis of data is presented in
Chapter Four. Chapter Five contains a summary of the research, discussion of the results,
conclusions of the study, and recommendations for further related studies.
13
Chapter Two
Literature Review and Development of Piano Instruction
Critical reviews of related research
Three previous studies exist comparing the influence of individual and group piano
instruction on young students’ musical achievements, authored by Hutcherson (1955), Rogers
(1974), and Diehl (1980). The three studies and their findings are briefly summarized and
evaluated below.
Hutcherson (1955) set up two experiments in the same study. Her first experiment sought to
determine whether group and individual piano instruction influenced the learning outcomes of
young beginners throughout a fourteen-week period. The items tested included (a): knowledge
of music rudiments (including the ability to recognize notational symbols and basic music
theory), (b) the ability to visually recognize familiar melodies, (c) the quality of prepared
performances in the recital hall, and (d) sight-reading ability. In order to secure comparable
groups of students, Hutcherson selected six pairs of young children from ages 7 to 10 years.
Each pair of students was selected based upon the researcher’s perception of the similarity of
musical, mental, physical and social maturity obtaining between the members of each pair.
Thus, the pairs were not randomly selected. In each pair, one student underwent group piano
instruction (experimental group), and the other received private piano instruction (control group),
comprising a total of six students each in the experimental group and the control group.
The students taught in a group setting received three 30 minutes lessons per week, while the
students taught individually received one 30 minutes lesson per week. As noted above, the
experiment took place over a period of approximately 14 weeks. Hutcherson herself instructed
14
both the group and the private sessions. Each week, she spent 90 minutes teaching the
experimental group and 180 minutes teaching the control group. The content taught was
essentially the same for both groups, with the procedures differing only in their adaptation to the
group or individual learning situation. The research placed no restriction on students’ practice
time. At the end of the experimental period, no significant differences were found between the
musical achievements of the two groups. Hutcherson concluded that the major advantage in
group instruction for this experiment was the economy of time.
Hutcherson’s second experiment compared rhythmic proficiency in sight-reading
performance at the piano between group-taught and individually-taught non-music major college
students at the beginning level. She chose to evaluate this aspect as she had previously noted a
difference in rhythmic proficiency between adult students taught in group or private settings, a
difference for which she could not account (Hutcherson, 1955, p. 75). Five matched pairs of
students were selected by the researcher. Five students were assigned to group instruction
(experimental group), and five students were assigned to private instruction (control group). The
students in group instruction received three 30 minutes classes per week for 10 weeks, and the
students in private instruction received one 30 minutes lesson per week for 15 weeks. Thus, the
experimental group received more instruction time, but the control group received its instruction
over a longer period, a difference that potentially bears upon the results of Hutcherson’s
comparison. The experimental group scored significantly higher in only one specific area:
performing easy piano music at sight with rhythmic accuracy and security (by which Hucherson
presumably means the confidence level of the performer and its relationship to accurate rhythm).
Due to the small sample size, and the fact that the paired participants were not randomly
selected, Rogers (1974) and Diehl (1980) both criticized the results of Hutcherson’s studies.
15
Moreover, with only one teacher providing all the instruction for both experimental and control
groups, and that teacher being the researcher herself, the potential exists for the bias of the
teacher to bear upon the quality of instruction provided (even if unconsciously), possibly
skewing the results of the experiment. The restricted scope of her second experiment, testing
only rhythmic proficiency, limits the conclusions that can be drawn from her research
(Hutcherson, 1955)
Of the three studies considered here, Rogers (1974) involved the largest sample size and
the longest average treatment time for each student in group instruction. Sixty-four beginning
piano students whose ages ranged from 7 to 9 years were selected on the basis of scores derived
from the Robert Pace Classroom Music Background Tests.2 Among the 64 students selected, 32
students were randomly selected to participate in group piano instruction, and the other 32
students were selected to receive private piano instruction. Four teachers were selected from a
cohort of graduate music and music education students at Columbia University and trained to
teach both modalities of instruction. Each teacher taught eight students in group piano
instruction, and eight students in private instruction. Before the instruction began, Richard
Colwellʼs Music Achievement Test, Level One was administered as a pretest of aural
discrimination ability.3 The same test was administered at the conclusion of the experimental
period in order to evaluate the difference after receiving instruction.
2 This test was designed to evaluate students’ musical background for teachers to understand the particular needs of
each prospective student. The test comprises (a) rhythmic response, (b) pitch recognition, (c) singing, (d) finger
coordination, (e) rudiments, (f) harmony, (g) reading, (h) previous repertoire, and (i) technique.
3 According to Rogers, “Richard Cowell’s Music Achievement Test I is a standardized musical test designed to provide
an accurate measurement for three musical skills: (1) pitch discrimination, (2) interval discrimination, and (3) meter
discrimination. The test requires no skills in music reading; only responses based on auditory tasks.” (Rogers, 1976,
p. 114)
16
Rogers adopted Robert Pace’s model of group piano instruction in which each student
received a 45-minute lesson in pairs, and a 60-minute class per week in a large group consisting
of eight students. Students in private piano instruction received a 30 minutes lesson each week.
After sixteen weeks of piano instruction, all participants took a posttest evaluating (a) aural
discrimination, (b) knowledge of musical symbols, (c) sight-reading, (d) transposition, and (e),
improvisation.4 The hypothesis assumed that participants in group instruction would earn
significantly higher scores in all five areas tested than participants in the private setting.
Rogers reported that participants who received group instruction scored significantly
higher (p>0.05) than the students who received individual piano instruction on all five variables
measured. Rogers also noted differences in results obtained by the students with regard to the
particular teacher they studied with, surmising that the effect of the teacher could significantly
influence the students’ acquisition of aural discrimination skills, knowledge of musical symbols,
and the ability to improvise.
Due to its larger sample size and multiple teachers, Rogers’ research was more
convincing than Hutcherson’s. However, as Diehl (1980) noted, rather than deriving from class
size alone, the results might be caused or affected by the disparity in lesson time experienced by
the experimental and control groups. Each student in group piano instruction received a total of
105 minutes lesson per week, an amount 3.5 times longer than those receiving private instruction
(Rogers, 1974).
4 The ability to improvise was evaluated on the student’s ability to improvise a four-bar musically-appropriate “answer”
(consequent phrase) to a given four-bar “question” (antecedent phrase), thus testing the student’s acquisition of
melodic grammar and procedure (Rogers, 1976).
17
Within a decade of Rogers’ study, Diehl (1980) conducted further research related to the
effect of group and individual piano instruction upon objective musical achievement. Aside
from suggesting that the results of Roger’s study might relate to its unusually large difference in
weekly instructional exposure time between those receiving group instruction (105 minutes) and
private instruction (30 minutes), Diehl also criticized Rogers’ (1974) absence of data regarding
the respective practice conditions—controls of practice time and procedure—between the
experimental and control group participants. Particularly since most practice presumably took
place in the school laboratory, an environment in which these factors could have been controlled
or monitored.
To avoid the extreme differences of instructional exposure times that Diehl questioned in
Rogers (1974), Diehl set the period of each group instruction (experimental group) at one hour
with four to six students participating, and retained the thirty-minute period of private instruction
(control group) of her predecessors. Diehl recruited 40 students between 6.5 and 9.5 years of age
to participate in this study. All students were pretested for aural discrimination ability with
Richard Colwellʼs Music Achievement Test, Level One, and were divided into four categories
based on ranking their pre-test scores. Each of the four categories contained 10 students⸺ five
students from each category were randomly assigned to group piano instruction, and another five
students were assigned to private piano instruction. All classes were taught by the investigator
herself. Diehl also tried to control for the involvement of parents and the amount of students’
practice time. The parents of students were required to attend the second and the fourth lesson of
each month, and they were also asked to monitor and confirm students’ practice time by signing
off on the weekly assignment sheets.
18
After completing 24 weeks of piano instruction, all students were required to take a
posttest. The tested musical achievements included (a) aural discrimination, (b) knowledge of
musical symbols, (c) sight-reading, (d) transposition, and (e) public performance ability. Diehl
gave a questionnaire to the parents two weeks prior to the end of the instruction. This
questionnaire was designed to provide some insight and feedback from the parents regarding
certain home factors, attitudes and studio procedures which may have affected the results.
Diehl’s test results showed no significant difference with regard to aural discrimination,
knowledge of musical symbols, and ability to transpose between the experimental and control
groups. Male students in general, and students of any gender at the age of 8 and older in the
experimental group received a significant higher score in public performance than control
groups. The experimental group scored significantly higher in sight-reading, especially with
students at age 8 and older.
Diehl concluded that students receiving group instruction achieved musically at a level
equal or slightly superior to those students who received private instruction. Diehl also
discovered that the age and gender of her participants impacted the results of the study. The
male students in group instruction outperformed their privately-taught counterparts in sight
reading, as did group-taught students of either gender aged 8 or older. The group-taught male
students also outperformed the privately-taught males in the category of public performance.
The questionnaire given to the parents of the test participants also revealed that students in the
group piano class appeared more motivated to practice at home than those receiving private
instruction.
19
As Diehl’s study utilized a sample size two times greater than that of Hutcherson (1955),
it is more likely to generate meaningful and accurate data. Also, her format of group piano
instruction—in which students were distributed in consistent groups of four to five students—
more likely resembles the approach to group instruction adopted by the majority of piano
teachers, making the results of her study more meaningful to them than the data generated by
Rogers (1974), which employs his particular hybrid pair/larger group method. In Roger’s
format, adapted from his mentor Robert Pace, both group size and duration of instruction
constitute variables that must be considered before a meaningful comparison to private
instruction can be drawn.
However, since all classes in Diehl’s study were taught by the same teacher, as was the
case with Hutcherson (1955), the teacher’s preference for either group or private instruction
could become a bias. As Rogers (1974) found, the influence of the teacher and his or her
teaching style did affect the results obtained by students in particular categories, namely
acquisition of aural discrimination, knowledge of musical symbols, and improvisational ability.
Thus, Diehl’s results might be affected by subjective factors such as teaching style, or preference
for a certain type of classes, factors neglected in her study (Diehl, 1980).
Similar studies exist investigating the efficacy of group piano instruction comparing
differently-sized groups and varying age groups. Gates (1975) investigated two different class
formats operative in adult group piano instruction. His research aimed to discover whether
working in pairs—or what Gates terms “peer group dyads”—produces learning outcomes
superior to those obtained by working individually in a group piano instructional context. In the
experimental group, 12 students were paired into six dyads. Each pair of students shared one
piano. The six students in the control group each had their own piano. All students received two
20
1-hour class sessions during the 10-week course, and the same materials were used by both the
experimental and control groups. The paired students were encouraged to resolve problems by
discussion with their teammates, and they depended less on the instructor for guidance, while the
solo students received more comments and guidelines from the instructor. After 10 weeks, Gates
concluded that these two types of class formats did not influence the results obtained in the
categories of rhythm, note accuracy and performance. As the experimental group contained
twice as many students as the control group in the paired setting, the time that the teacher spent
on each student was only half that of the solo setting. Moreover, with 12 students in one class
instead of six, the paired setting maximized the function of the piano lab and each student only
need to pay a half of the tuition. Therefore, Gates concluded that utilizing a paired setting within
group piano instruction was preferable on the basis of further benefits it provides in terms of
teacher time, piano lab utilization and student cost.
By working with groups of two, four, six and eight students, Jackson (1980) investigated
whether class size affects the development of basic keyboard skills of beginners. Jackson’s study
also involved different age groups. To conduct her study, she recruited 12 preschool students,
eight elementary school students, 12 high school students, and 12 college sophomores. Each age
group was divided into one small group (with two or four students), and one large group (with
six or eight students). Jackson evaluated the progress of the various groups after each had
received six 1-hour lessons (preschool students received twelve 30-minute lessons). No
significant difference was found between the control and experimental groups.
Researchers also studied the results of group instruction on instruments other than piano.
Following experiments with high school vocal beginners, Sim (1961) concluded that the
achievements of students learning in a group setting compared favorably to those of the
21
privately-taught students. Seipp (1976) compared the progress of college trumpet students
taught either collectively or individually over the course of a school year. He discovered no
significant differences in (a) trumpet performance, (b) interpretive judgment, (c) auditory-visual
music discrimination (aural dictation and transcription), and (d) the quantity of musical
material—technique exercises, etudes and solo pieces—performed by each student. However,
students receiving group instruction in Seipp’s study scored significantly higher in sight-reading,
a result corresponding to the results of studies by Hutcherson (1955), Rogers (1974) and Diehl
(1980).
As we can see from the previous research cited above, the musical progress of students
taught in a group setting was typically equal to or slightly superior to that of those taught
privately. In other words, no significant differences are observable in the results obtained by the
two modalities of instruction—group or individual—in elementary piano (or other instruments).
Rogers (1974) was the only one reporting that group-taught students scored significantly
higher achievements in all aspects of musical progress tested. Sims (1961) indicates that group
instruction is better for beginning vocalists of high school age. Hutcherson (1955) and Seipp
(1976) found the group-taught college students performed better in sight-reading; the same result
was also found in Diehl’s study, albeit limited to male students and all students at the age of
eight or above. However, all of these studies are potentially affected by factors that were either
not controlled or otherwise neglected. For instance, the experimental and control groups in
Rogers’ study received instruction of unequal duration, a variable that in my view was
insufficiently considered, as one would reasonably presume that a student receiving more hours
of instruction night outperform one who received less. The instruction given in studies of
Hutcherson (1955), Sims (1961), Seipp (1976), and Diehl (1980)—in terms of quantitative
22
analysis, the “treatment”—was all completed by a single teacher, typically the researcher herself,
which according to Rogers’ study, might create a bias. Another potentially limiting factor shared
by most of the studies cited above is that of relatively small sample size. Excepting studies of
Rogers (1974) and Diehl (1980), which comprised 64 participants and 36 participants all the
other studies utilized much smaller sample sizes, consisting of 24 or fewer participants .
In consideration of the limitations of the previous studies, for the present study, I decided
to increase the sample size to 48 participants , to control the lesson length between experimental
and control groups, and to add one more instructor, both to prevent possible bias deriving from
teaching style and to investigate the influence of the teacher on the learning achievements of the
students. Given the current trend of an increasing number of piano students to begin lessons at
preschool ages (from ages 4 to 6), I elected to investigate the relative influence of group and
private piano instruction on beginning students aged 5. This is the first such study to compare
the impact of group versus individual instruction on the musical achievements of participants
younger than 6 years old.
In addition, the present study investigates two new items of musical achievement
centered on aural skill, both involving the connections between aural stimulus and kinesthetic
response: melodic play-back—in which the student repeats a melodic phrase played by the
teacher—and rhythmic clap-back, the repetition by the student of rhythms played by the teacher.
Notation is not used for these activities. The aural discrimination component of the studies cited
above investigates only the connections between the aural versus visual senses (as in asking the
student if a notated example corresponds to the music heard), but ignores the connection between
aural and kinesthetic senses proven critical to musical performance and sight-reading (Brown &
Palmer, 2013; Hayward & Eastlund Gromko, 2009). Given the importance of the interaction
23
between the aural and kinesthetic senses attested by such studies, I considered it crucial to devise
items in the current study to evaluate these connections as they develop in group and individual
instruction of young beginners.
Development of Piano Instruction from the Late 18th Century to the Present
Before proceeding to the methodology and results of the current study, in what follows I
provide an overview of the historical development of piano instruction in Europe and the United
States, showing how its scope is deeply related to and affected by the evolution of those
societies. In particular, I trace the emergence of group piano instruction and the philosophies
that informed its development in varying locations and eras. With such an understanding in
place, it will be easier to contextualize and interpret the current research.
I. Prior to the Late 18th Century
Until the later 19th century, formal music instruction was largely limited to elite or
aristocratic families. Others able to receive formal music training were either the children of
musical families, or those who showed exceptional talents at a young age. Children of musical
families whose members served as professional musicians in the churches and courts, like Louis
and Francois Couperin, J.S. Bach and sons, Domenico Scarlatti, Mozart, and Beethoven,
received their initial music training from parents or relatives. Those born to ordinary and non-
musician families who demonstrated exceptional talent, such as Handel and Haydn, sometimes
became apprentices of master musicians and received musical training by working as an
assistant.
Unlike most musicians today, who typically specialize in one instrument, musicians of
the past were relatively more versatile. As the goal of these students was to become a
24
comprehensive musician able to serve at a church or court, their musical training required them
to master multiple instruments, obtain sufficient knowledge of music theory, and develop
proficiency in counterpoint and composition. For example, J.S. Bach taught his children all the
principles of music, encompassing theory, composition, and performance. Haydn received
instruction in voice, violin, and keyboard at St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, under the tutelage
of Georg Weutter. By living or working daily with their masters (or family), the apprentices
were constantly involved with musical activities. Technique and knowledge was refined by
virtue of intense and close interaction with their teachers in a variety of musical settings.
Therefore, the concept of “practice”, as we understand it today, did not exist. In fact, some
masters seemed to prefer that students not practice on their own. Friedrich Marpuerg suggested
in his treatise, Die Kunst das Clavier zu Spielen, if students practiced on their own they might
well ruin what their teachers had already helped them to achieve. When Francois Couperin gave
daily harpsichord lessons to the daughters of Parisian aristocrats in their houses, he locked the
harpsichord at the end of the lesson to ensure that his students didn’t form any bad habits by
practicing without his supervision (Parakilas et al, 1999)
II. Instruction from the Late 18th Century to the End of the 19th Century
From the late 18th century onwards, the industrial revolution in Western Europe led to an
increase in the population, and an expansion in the numbers of middle class, bringing increased
wealth to more families outside of aristocratic society. Previously the nearly exclusive privilege
of upper-class society, art music increasingly became a fashionable entertainment for the new
middle-class.
25
Promoted successfully by talented entrepreneurs and players, the piano rose to a
dominant status among all other instruments, becoming the most popular instrument. Owning a
piano became a symbol of a family’s wealth and social status. Piano lessons became standard for
young women in wealthy families, as the ability to play piano well was viewed as a female
accomplishment conducive to securing a more favorable marriage situation (Loesser, 1954).
After marriage, playing the piano was not just a way to occupy a woman’s leisure hours. It was
also her duty to perform competently both for the recreation of her family, and to represent her
family as cultured at parties and social gatherings that might affect its reputation.
As the 19th century progressed, the piano no longer belonged strictly to upper-class and
middle-class families. The piano increasingly became the center of entertainment and familial
gathering in many homes. Speaking somewhat condescendingly of the proliferation of pianos in
the 19th century, a Le Charivari columnist, writing in 1844, observed, “As the piano has become
an indispensable piece of furniture, and that is found today in practically every salon, in every
apartment, and in every porter’s loge, manufacturers see themselves as obligated to whip up
these instruments in such a manner that they will fit into the tiniest little corners” (Parakilas et
al., 1999).
Piano Instruction
The demand for piano instruction by both amateurs and prospective professional pianists
increased enormously in the 19th century. The growing popularity of the piano greatly increased
performance opportunities for pianists, attracting many talented adolescents to pursue their
dreams of become a concert pianist. At the same time, piano lessons became a necessary
26
component of education for women in increasingly affluent middle-class families. These
circumstances allowed famous pianists like Czerny and Chopin to obtain a decent income merely
by teaching piano. Increased demand for formal music training also led to the formation of music
conservatories, becoming widespread in Europe after the first modern conservatory, National de
Musique, was established in Paris in 1795 (Parakilas et al., 1999).
Excepting those members of wealthy families who could afford the tuition of professional
piano teachers, aspiring amateurs were usually taught by someone who knew how to play piano,
but who had no formal musical training. Some amateurs were not able to afford regular lessons
or lived in rural areas where they had limited access to instruction. Music publishers produced
several method books for such students to be able to teach themselves. For instance, Johann
Peter Milchmeyer claimed that his book, Die wahre Art das Pianoforte zu spielen, was written
for amateurs and beginners without a teacher, or for village teachers who were for the most part
“far removed from the perfection of artistic cultivation” (Rhein, 1993). Clementi’s tutorial,
Clementi’s Introduction to the Art of Playing on the Piano Forte, was likewise written as an
autodidactic “user manual” in order to attract new piano buyers who had never learned piano.
The book included an introduction to hand position, musical terms, technique exercises, and also
featured a wide range of compositions by well-known composers from previous centuries to the
present. As Parakilas (1999) comments, “Clementi’s Introduction shows piano students the full
range of musical experience that the piano can open up for them, from the classic to the popular
and from orchestral and vocal transcriptions to the natively pianistic”.
The great popularity in the 19th century of the virtuosic playing style and astonishing
technique of such players as Liszt and Chopin also had an impact on piano instruction. Such
masters were greatly admired by the public for their virtuosity. The fashion for virtuosic and
27
flawless playing initiated an era of piano instruction largely defined by technical studies and
etudes. Over time, many pianists and piano instructors tended to focus on finger speed, power,
and flawless musical execution, at the expense of aesthetics, imagination, interpretation, and
expression. For instance, the piano method published by Sigismund Lebert and Ludwig Stark in
1865 emphasized practicing pieces loudly with no dynamic changes in the early stages, and
advocated that “all the fingers must on an average be held firmly about one inch over the keys
[…] strike rapidly and perpendicularly and just as rapidly return to their first position”.5 Charles
Hanon claimed that playing through his entire book of exercise every day would allow the
fingers to play evenly and securely. Other examples of pedagogues who advocated similar
methods include Louis Plaidy, Josef Pischna, Isidor Philipp and Ernst von Dohnányi. Their
exercise manuals were widely used well into the 20th century (Uszler, Gordon & Mach, 1991).
The over-emphasis on technical execution advocated by these methods caused many
prominent musicians to worry about the loss of overall musicality and aesthetic sense. As
pedagogues, Schumann, Mendelssohn and Liszt all strove to teach young musicians
comprehensively. Robert Schumann, whose career as a professional pianist was ruined by an
injury caused by using a finger-strengthening device, was an opponent of finger exercise
methods. In 1848, Schumann published Album for the Young, a set of poetic pieces intended to
engage the distinctly childish imaginations of students (Parakilas et a., 1999). He also wrote a
guide book in the same year, Musikalische Haus-und Lebens-Regeln (Advice to Young
5 Levert and Stark assert that “The mechanism of the piano, whose most important principle rests upon the rapid rising
of the hammer from a fixed point, and the equally rapid falling back into its first position requires a
corresponding counter action on the part of hand. All the fingers must on an average be held firmly about one inch
over the keys strike rapidly and perpendicularly and just as rapidly return to their first position” (p.7-8).
28
Musicians: Musical Rules for Home and in Life), instructing younger students how to become a
“true musician”. Schumann asserts:
The cultivation of the ear is of the greatest importance—Endeavour early to distinguish
each several tone and key. Find out the exact notes sounded by the bell, the glass, the
cuckoo, etc. . . . . it is not only necessary that you should be able to play your pieces on
the instrument, but you should also be able to hum the air without the piano. Strengthen
your imagination so that you may not only retain the melody of a composition, but even
the harmony which belongs to it.6 (Schumann, 1860)
While Schumann recommended practicing scales and other finger exercises frequently,
he also pointed out that merely practicing these exercises is not sufficient. The impressive sales
of Album for the Young inspired other composers to compose imaginative pieces for children.
For instance, Tchaikovsky’s Children’s Album, Op. 39, composed in 1878, included twenty-four
short pieces for young students.
Serving as the first director of the Leipzig Conservatory during the last four years of his
life, Felix Mendelssohn established a three-year curriculum intended to give incoming students a
comprehensive music education. The curriculum included music history, theory, and basic
keyboard and singing skills. Mendelssohn’s goal was to provide a balanced educational
experience for all students, no matter what their instrument was. However, his broad curriculum
fell apart quickly after his death. After this time, Leipzig and other conservatories in the Europe
tended to focus on performance skill alone, at the expense of other aspects of musical education.
6 Robert Schumann, Musikalisch Haus- und Lebens-Regeln, 2–4.
29
As the preeminent virtuoso of the 19th century, Franz Liszt devoted his last 20 years to educating
young pianists. Recognizing the pitfalls of the mechanistic technique then being emphasized in
the conservatories, Liszt concentrated on music interpretation, and encouraged his students to be
imaginative in performance. Of course, Liszt recognized the centrality of technique to musical
execution, but he also warned against the lack of artistry inherent in merely performing “finger
gymnastics” (Parakilas et al., 1999).
In the late 19th century, after piano manufacturers enlarged the size of the instrument,
adopting a cast-iron frame and heavier keys, playing with curved fingers and limited movements
of arms and wrists as suggested in early methods became inappropriate. Pianists like Ludwig
Deppe, William Mason, Rudolf Maria Breithaupt, and Tobias Matthay became pioneers of arm
weight technique, devoting themselves to newly emergent concepts emphasizing freedom of
motion and relaxation. This approach came to influence 20th-century piano pedagogy (Uszler,
Gordon, Mach, 1991).
Teaching Piano in Group
Throughout the 19th century, the traditional master-apprentice model was the most
popular format of piano instruction. However, the high demand for piano instruction inspired
Johann Bernhard Logier (1777-1846) to form the new class format of teaching piano in a group
setting. Logier was a wind-instrument player in a military band. Besides teaching piano, he was
also a composer, inventor, and successful businessman, selling the “chiroplast”, an implement he
devised to help students develop good hand shape for playing piano. Living in Dublin, Ireland,
Logier saw that it was difficult for piano teachers to make sufficient income solely by teaching
private lessons. Moreover, private instruction could be costly for prospective students. The
group class served to ameliorate both concerns. By teaching a group of students simultaneously,
30
a teacher could earn significantly higher hourly wages, while students spent much less than they
would taking private lessons. In 1815, Logier designed a class format that could accommodate as
many as thirty students. The economic benefits for both teachers and students caused Logier’s
system to grow rapidly, crossing two oceans in the process. In 1818, Logier’s system could be
found in 28 academies in Great Britian, Ireland, the United States (New York and Philadelphia),
and India (Calcutta) (Loesser, 1954).
As well as instituting group piano classes, Logier’s further innovation lay in devising a
class format in which he was able to teach beginners as well as more advanced students in the
same class period. Since his system focused on introducing fundamental musical theory and
keyboard harmony rather than perfecting students’ technique, Logier arranged pieces with
multiple voices that comprised simple harmonic progression and variations. In the two-hour
class, beginners played a simple bass line in strict rhythm, while intermediate or advanced played
more elaborate parts, creating a layered texture of varying complexity. The teacher occasionally
invited a single student or a small group of students to play, in order to evaluate the progress of
the individual.
The widespread popularity of Logier’s new teaching system initiated the earliest disputes
pitting advocates of the private lesson against those favoring the group lesson format. In April
and May 1817, a series of caustic letters to the editors of the Weekly Chronicle and The
Caledonian Mercury were written attacking Logier’s piano class. Opponents of the method
argued the teacher would have to divide his attention among the members of the class so much
that the student would not receive enough individual attention. Moreover, since the eight to ten
pianos utilized in the group class could not be tuned to exactly the same pitch, the procedure of
having the students play simultaneously could create acoustical discrepancies detrimental to the
31
proper training of the musical ear, as could students making mistakes and playing out of rhythm.
However, even the opponents of group piano conceded that class instruction could accelerate the
progress of learning. One letter declared:
Not only by the spirit of emulation excited, but also by the conversations which pupils of
a certain age naturally hold on the subject of their studies, in which they often succeed in
explaining to each other what their master did not make them understand. (Richards,
1962)
Due to the high overhead of renting, equipping, and maintaining large studios, Logier’s
system began to decline quite rapidly in England beginning in 1822. He also experienced a
seasonal fluctuation in attendance due to his summer students returning to their home countries
when vacations were over (Loesser, 300). At this time Logier also accepted a government post
in Prussia to institute his method there. Despite its decline in England, his system survived and
thrived elsewhere. Logier’s son Frederick continued to utilize his father’s system in Cape Town,
South Africa. As late as 1943, the Logierian system was discussed at the South African
Association for the Advancement of Science (Richards, 1962).
Group teaching from great music masters
Although it became the subject of heated debates, the concept of teaching piano in a group
setting undoubtedly inspired musicians of the day. Clara Schumann, for one, liked to teach her
students in small groups of not more than three pupils, twice a week, enabling them to learn from
each other (Booth, 1996). During the last twenty years of his life, Liszt devoted most his
teaching time to master classes—a concept he originated—instead of private lessons. Taking
place three or four times weekly, these master classes were usually more than two hours long.
32
He gave his students both freedom of choice in repertoire, and in deciding when they were ready
to play for the class.
Group teaching also took place in conservatories. Felix Mendelssohn, the first director of
the newly established Leipzig Conservatory (1843), created a new system for instrumental
lessons placing three to six students of similar advancement in groups for their lesson. In this
setting, students could learn from their companions, and teachers could earn a higher hourly rate.
The system of teaching piano, as well as other instruments, in small groups remained the norm in
Europe and the United States until the turn of the 20th century, when American schools began to
favor private lessons (Parakilas et al., 1999).
III. Piano Instruction in the 20th Century and Thereafter
Broadly speaking, piano instruction in the United States during the 20th century departed
significantly from the practices of the 19th century. Piano instructors gradually prioritized
enhancing fundamental musicianship over the development of finger technique, especially with
beginning students. This evolution, according to previous literature (Uszler, Gordon & Mach,
1991), is crucially influenced by the development of class piano in the early 20th century.
Class Piano
The term “class piano” in this section, refers to group piano classes offered by public
schools from the 1910s to the 1970s (or 1980s) consisting of six or more students. According to
Richards (1962), the purpose of the class piano format was to establish a solid foundation of
music, including: (1) understanding of music rudiments pertinent to the printed page; (2) grasp of
chords and key; (3) development of the tactile sense (basic technique); (4) rhythmic security; (5)
33
development of a discriminating ear; (6) understanding of the principles of phrasing, tone, pedal;
(7) sight reading; (8) transposition, and (9) opportunity for creative experience.
Just prior to the turn of the 20th century, the class piano format was promoted by James
C. Fillmore at the U.S. Office of Education. Fillmore believed teaching piano in a group setting
could spare the teacher the necessity of time-consuming repetitious explanations to individual
students, and broaden the musical experience of the student by having them play for a group, and
have the experience of listening to their peers. Students could also gain self-confidence by
playing before others. Fillmore also believed strongly in the complete utilization of time in the
piano class. In his conception, the classroom was the locus of the dissemination and reception of
concepts, and that practice should take place at home.
Starting in 1913, group piano classes began to be offered in American public schools
(Richards, 40). Within several years, class piano was widely accepted in many cities. With
generous support from the National Bureau for the Advancement of Music, the decades of 1920s
and 1930s saw the apex of the popularity of class piano at American public schools (Richards,
1962; Diehl, 1981). The National Bureau for the Advancement of Music (NBAM) was an
organization founded in 1916 by C. M. Tremaine as a business venture. Adopting the slogan,
“Foster music in order to promote music,” Tremaine obtained financial support from many music
retailers who hoped that the efforts of his organization to promote music education might
counteract the declining sales they experienced during the Great War and thereafter. The most
ambitious project undertaken by NBAM was a national survey of class piano and the formation
of a class piano committee, resulting in the publication of the influential tutorial entitled Guide
for Conducting Piano Classes in the Schools in 1928. Within a year, more than 4,800 different
American towns and cities requested a copy of the guide. The surge of interest in class piano
34
also spread abroad, with requests for the guide being received from Egypt, Japan, Korea, and
South Africa, among other countries (Tremaine, 1928).
Unfortunately, however, the broad popularity of class piano did not translate into greatly
increased piano sales, as the sponsors had hoped. Piano sales were deeply impacted by the Great
Depression, a downward spiral from which they still have not recovered. Class piano also
encountered the same fate, declining rapidly after 1935 due to the financial depression and a lack
of teachers trained sufficiently in group piano teaching skills. According to a survey undertaken
by the Research Division of the National Education Association, by 1963 only 13.4 percent of all
elementary schools offered group piano instruction (Diehl, 1980).
Influences of Class Piano on American Piano Pedagogy
Although class piano declined quickly in public schools in the mid-19th century, due to
budget shortfalls and difficulties recruiting well-trained teachers, its influence remains deeply
rooted in American piano pedagogy. This pervasive influence tends to reinforce the image of the
piano as the primary instrument through which one builds comprehensive musicianship skills.
Such a concept gave the piano renewed importance in music education, and retained its
prominence among all musical instruments in the public eye. Teaching materials for class piano
such as the Oxford Piano Course (1929) became the prototype for subsequent methods for
beginners of all ages. Concepts in the Oxford Piano Course, such as singing before or while
playing the piece, transposition and harmonization skills, still remain important in contemporary
methods. Many class piano teachers became pioneers of pre-school and adult piano methods.
For instance, class piano instructors Fay Templeton Frisch and Ada Richter shifted their focus to
35
students of preschool ages and created age-appropriate materials for group instruction (Uszler,
Gordon & Mach, 1991).
The traditional class piano format was adopted by instructors of fundamental keyboard
courses for general students and non-piano music majors at most American colleges and
universities. Similar to traditional class piano, these new university group piano courses greatly
emphasized basic musicianship training such as transposition, harmonization and ensemble
playing.
The rapid growth of class piano during the first half of the 20th century had an impact on
the development of piano teaching training. As we have seen, the rapid growth of class piano
courses in the public schools, with its special combination of piano teaching and class teaching,
made it chronically difficult to find a sufficient number of teachers adequately trained in both
components of class piano teaching skills. It is important to recognize that there is a significant
difference between traditional private instruction and group instruction, and not every individual
is equipped to execute both modalities of instruction capably without training. As Ella Mason
Ahearn (1929) states, “The piano class teacher is one combining musicianship and a definite
understanding of piano pedagogy with the knowledge of educational principles, psychology and
group procedures.” (Richards, 1962, p 93) Just because a pianist may be able to teach well in a
private setting does not necessarily mean that he or she will possess the skills necessary to teach
effectively in a group setting. Conversely, a skilled educator lacking piano skills will also
struggle to teach effectively. To solve this problem, many universities and colleges began to
offer courses in group piano pedagogy. The number of American universities and colleges
offering piano pedagogy courses increased from 43 to more than 150 between 1929 and 1931
(Richards, 1962). Today, although class piano almost vanishes in public schools, courses of
36
piano teaching became a standard even for piano performance major students. According to the
standards of the National Association of Schools of Music, piano performance majors are
required to take piano pedagogy courses in order to receive the bachelor degree, as it is assumed
that the vast majority of pianists will find it necessary to at least supplement their income
through teaching throughout their professional careers.
Influence of Scientific and Educational Psychology Research on Piano Instruction
The development of preschool piano methods
In addition to the influence of class piano, research related to educational psychology,
medical science, and neuroscience has also made a great impact on piano instruction in second
half of the 20th century, especially on preschool piano methods. In the 1960s and 1970s, due to
the increase of full-time working mothers, the daycare business began to boom in the United
States. Psychologists, parents, and educators all began to consider early childhood education to
be as important as education at older ages. On top of it, theories from developmental
psychologists, such as Montessori, Piaget, Vygotsky and Brunner, all suggest that “natural
musical instincts are enhanced when music is experienced early” (Jacobson, 2015, p.276). With
these influences, music education systems for preschool students such as Dalcroze’s, Orff’s and
Kodaly’s program, which had already existed for decades in Europe, started to become popular
in the United States (Uszler, Gordon & Mach, 1991).
As Dalcroze’s, Orff’s and Kodaly’s musical programs gained popularity, many writers of
piano methods were encouraged to publish piano methods intended for the preschool beginner.
Madeleine Carabo-Cone’s A Sensory-Motor Approach to Music Learning (1969), James
Bastien’s The Very Young Pianist (1970), Robert Pace’s Music for Moppet’s, Child’s Book
(1971), and Ann Collins and Linda Clary’s Sing and Play (1981) are all intended for teaching
37
preschool-age students. In the same period, methods published abroad, such as the Suzuki Piano
School (1978), and Yamaha Music Education System (1978) also claimed to be appropriate for
students at a preschool age. Among the listed methods above, Madeleine Carabo-Cone’s A
Sensory-Motor Approach to Music Learning, Robert Pace’s Music for Moppet’s, Child’s Book,
and Yamaha Music Education System were designed for group instruction.
In fact, methods for preschool students for both individual and group instruction have
existed much earlier (since the 1930s). The earliest examples include Louise Robin’s Teaching
Musical Notation with Picture Symbols (1932), Ada Richter’s Kindergarten Class Book designed
for group instruction, and May B. Kelly Kirby and John Kirby’s Kindergarten Piano Method
(1939). More preschool piano books were published in the 1940s and 1950s, some of which
influenced subsequent modern piano methods. The Music Readiness Books (1946) by Sister M.
Xaveria present the earliest off-staff directional reading system with letter names appearing on
note-heads. Frances Clark’s Time to Begin (1955) presented another type of off-head reading
approach by using two, three and four lines before introducing five-line and grand-staff reading.
Both systems are still frequently used in current preschool and average-age methods.
However, many methods for preschool students were not published by major publishers
until 1990s. The trend that preschool methods were heavily promoted by publishers in 1990s
might relate to a great amount of research citing the multiple benefits of music education for
children in the same period. The most famous of these studies is that of Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky
(1993), which identifies the so-called “Mozart Effect”—the apparent improvement in spatial-
temporal reasoning among those children who listen to the music of Mozart. The popularity of
the “Mozart Effect” experiments inspired more adjacent research investigating the influence of
music learning upon children’s development. For instance, Bilhartz, Bruhn, and Olson (1999)
38
found the greatest improvement in Bead Memory7 scores (short memory) in those children who
participated most fully in music exercises. Schellenberg (2006) found that the duration of music
lessons in childhood was positively associated with IQ development. Several studies also found
early music instruction corresponds with and can increase spatial-temporal reasoning abilities
(Costa-Giomi et al., 2001; Gromko & Poorman, 1998; Hetland, 2000; Rauscher et al., 1997;
Rauscher & Zupan, 2000).
The appearance and popularization of research correlating childhood music study with
enhanced performance on IQ tests and the strengthening of neural connections listed above,
aroused parents’ awareness of the possible benefits of music education. Studies reporting the
benefits of learning music at preschool ages encourage parents to enroll their young children in
music programs. With the historical image of piano instruction as the fundamental musical class,
piano instruction usually becomes parents’ first choice for early childhood music study.
Although both group and private piano instruction for preschoolers has existed for more
than eight decades, none of the previous studies cited above evaluating the results of group
versus private piano instruction investigated students at preschool ages. As we have seen, the
majority of the studies cited at the beginning of this chapter demonstrate that no significant
differences in learning outcomes for beginning piano instruction was found between students
taught privately or in a group setting; moreover, the format of group instruction—whether in
dyads, small groups, or one individual to a piano—does not seem to impact the outcomes greatly.
The important point to be drawn here is that the evidence suggests that group piano instruction is
at least as effective for the beginning student as private instruction. Given the increasing trend
7 A test for short term memory by using beads
39
for preschool piano instruction, it is necessary to determine if similar results apply to the
preschool-aged cohort. As studies (Butler & Walton, 2013; Master & Walton, 2013) have found
the increase of motivation from preschool students when they conduct group-relevant tasks,
group piano instruction may positively affect children at preschool age than older children. The
present study exists in part to address this question, as the majority of the participants are 5 years
old.
Piano Teacher
Teachers today benefit from research related to psychology and cognition in better
understanding their students. Such research includes theories developmental stage and phase
(Piaget, Brunner , Sosniak), learning styles (Barbe, Swassing, Milone, 1979), achievement
motivation (Cain &Dweck, 1995; Heyman & Dweck, 1998), and studies investigating correlation
between musical performance and the brain ( Altenmuller, Kesselring, & Wiesendanger, 2006).
One of the most current and influential theories for piano teachers is the so-called
“learning modalities” (Barbe, Swassing & Milone, 1979). The authors theorize that three
primary learning modalities exist through which information is received and processed—the
visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. A learner typically favors one of these learning modalities above
the others. Familiarity with the theory of three learning modalities compelled some piano
instructors to suspect that although learning to read music notation is important, the ability to
read music is not the only avenue through which students may engage music and piano playing.
Students with a strong auditory sense, for example, learn better by imitating what they hear, and
students with a strongly developed kinesthetic/tactile sense might find it easier to understand
musical concepts through body movements. Responding to the growing awareness of different
40
learning styles in the latter 20th century, piano methods began to embrace various activities to
accommodate the different learning styles of children (Garcia, 2002).
Perhaps with less available research of peer-interaction, achievement motivation and
cognitive development, these authors did not investigate the correlation between results and
psychological and cognitive development in the previous related studies (Hucherson, 1955;
Rogers, 1974; Diehl, 1980). In this study, I will investigate whether psychological and cognitive
development correlate to the results of the current study.
41
Chapter Three
Method
This chapter explicates the design and experimental procedures of the current research,
including recruitment of participants, class designs, teaching plans and a posttest.
Research Design
This study used a posttest-only quasi-experimental design to determine whether the
relationship between group piano instruction and students’ musical achievements differs
significantly from that of privately instructed students. Students receiving group instruction
served as the experimental group, while the privately instructed students constituted the control
group.
To conduct this research, I recruited 48 children ranging in age from 5 to 7 with no
formal music learning experience and divided into two groups. The experimental group of 24
participants took group lessons, and the control group of 24 participants took private piano
lessons. All participants were expected to take 24 weekly piano lessons either in group or
private piano instruction. Considering the possibility that a particular teacher’s teaching
approach, experience, and his/her personal preferences for a particular type of instruction can
influence students’ musical achievements, I decided to include two teachers in order to mitigate
the possible biases arising from a particular teacher’s approach to teaching. Each teacher was
assigned to teach 12 private lessons, and four group lessons to groups consisting of three
students. After completing 24 lessons, all participants were required to take a posttest evaluating
their mastery of the five designated musical achievements: (a) music knowledge, (b) music
reading, (c) aural discrimination, (d) kinesthetic response, and (e) performance skill.
42
Data Analysis
Independent variables
Four factors were considered as independent variables: (a) instruction, (b) teacher,
(c) age, and (d) gender. The mode of instruction—group or individual—constitutes the
“main factor” or the determinative question to which this study is addressed. Three other
factors are tested here to verify the consistency of the results pertaining to the main
factor. The study also aims to discover whether the relationship of instruction to
students’ musical achievements remains constant across different age and gender groups.
It may be possible that one type of instruction is particularly effective for certain age and
gender groups.
Dependent variables
The musical achievements evaluated by this research comprise five topics: (a)
music knowledge, (b) music reading, (c) aural discrimination, (4) kinesthetic response,
and (5) performance skill. These five musical achievements were selected as dependent
variables. The study expects that musical achievements between the experimental group
and control group will show no significant difference—a so-called “null hypothesis”.
Definitions and Purposes of the Five Achievements
Playing a musical instrument is an activity involving multisensory connections between
the visual, auditory and kinesthetic senses (Lee & Noppeney, 2011). Performing a piece from a
score requires a musician to translate the notations comprehended visually into appropriate motor
commands nearly instantaneously. In the meantime, his/her auditory sense functions to ensure
that the visual-motor connection is correct, and helps adjust the player’s movement to correspond
to the notation. It is also important for a musician to be able to transform the visual score to an
43
auditory representation (inner hearing) which helps him/her to imagine and anticipate the sound
in mind, in order to perfect the quality of performance (Altenmuller, Weisendanger, &
Kesselring 2006). The faster the connections operate between visual, auditory and kinesthetic
(tactile) senses, the more thoroughly one can master musical performance.
In the present study, the instruction was structured to help students establish common
musical knowledge and develop links between their visual, auditory, and kinesthetic senses, as
measured by the five achievement categories I created. Some of these achievements resemble
those evaluated by prior research; others are unique to the present study. Definition of these five
achievements and their functions of developing sensory coordination are as follows:
1. music knowledge refers to the comprehension of musical symbols and notes. These
symbols are the medium through which the player associates sound and movement.
When the symbols are comprehended correctly, the player knows which specific
movement(s) will correctly produce the notated sound.
2. Music reading indicates the visual ability required to recognize similar or
identical musical patterns (sequences), musical intervals (steps and skips) and
melodic direction as they appear in an actual notated melody. Simple note-spelling
with stepwise and skipping movements are included in this section.
3. Aural discrimination refers to the aural ability to identify meters, written rhythmic
patterns and melodic patterns through listening. This item tests the connection
between the auditory and visual senses by requiring the student to match an aural
example with notated examples.
4. Kinesthetic Response comprise four test items: (a) melody playback, (b) rhythmic
44
clap back, (c) sight-reading, and (d) rhythmic reading. Melody playback and
rhythmic clap back are items related to auditory-motor connections. As for sight-
reading and rhythmic reading, these two items are involved with visual-motor
connections. However, Hayward and Gromko (2009) found auditory skills are also
fundamental to mastering sight-reading. Therefore, sight-reading should be
considered as activities involving all three sensory modes, instead of two
(visual/motor).
5. Performance skill refers to the ability to play an entire piece fluently with correctly
executed notes, rhythms, and appropriate dynamic changes. The four items listed
above serve as preparation for performance quality.
Experimental Procedures
In order to simulate the working environment and practical circumstances of real-world
teachers, and obtain realistic results, I decided to conduct the research as a private teacher
without financial assistance from sponsors or the university. This meant that the researcher
accrued expenses in establishing the group instruction context, just as a private teaching studio
would, primarily with regard to the acquisition of digital pianos sufficient to equip the group
instruction context.
Location and Equipment
To conduct the research, I established a music studio on a major street in the city of
Bellevue, Washington. The fifth largest city in Washington State, with a population of 134,400
people, Bellevue lies ten miles due east of Seattle. According to the demographic data provided
45
by the United States Census Bureau in 2010, the majority of residents are Caucasian (62.2%),
followed by Asians (27.6.%) and Hispanics (7%).
The studio size is about 800 square feet with a waiting area, an office and two
classrooms. The first classroom is a large room of about 400 square feet that accommodates
three Yamaha digital pianos and a Chickering baby grand piano. The large studio provides
enough space for students to do group activities, and for parents to observe the class. This
classroom is a suitable location for both group and private lessons. All three Yamaha digital
pianos have weighted keys, enabling players to execute different volumes and articulations. The
second classroom is smaller, and contains a Boston grand piano and two chairs. Both pianos are
well-maintained and tuned regularly. Both classrooms have sufficient teaching supplies for the
study, including a whiteboard, flash cards for note-spelling and rhythmic training and a stereo
system to play music from CDs and mp3 files.
Pilot Study
The purpose of the pilot study was to allow the researcher to finalize the curriculum and
the content of the posttest before the formal treatment began, to ensure that the design of the
curriculum and the posttest are designed properly for children aged 5 to 7 years old. In total, five
participants were recruited to join the pilot study from October 2011 to May 2012. Three of them
at the ages of 5 and 6 received 50 minutes each of group instruction, and two of them at the age
of 6 received 30 minutes of private instruction. All five participants finished 24 weekly
instruction and completed the first version of the posttest. Observation of the participants’
46
weekly progress and the result of the posttest proved invaluable to assist the researcher in
adjusting and fine-tuning the curriculum and the content of the posttest.
Recruitment of participants
The recruitment was facilitated through the researcher’s personal and professional
networks. The parents of the participating students received a 50% discount on tuition for their
participation in the study. In total, the recruitment procedure took about five months to complete
(from August 2012 to January 2013).
(1) Distribution of recruitment information
Due to my Asian ethnic background and my personal network of Asian acquaintances, I
was able to post the recruitment information to members of the Chinese Microsoft Employee
Network (CHIME) and a social group for Taiwanese mothers in Seattle on Facebook. The
recruitment information was also posted in public areas such as super markets, local community
centers, one art studio and one dance studio in Bellevue.
(2) Interview
Parents who were interested in allowing their children to participate in the study could
contact me to set up an interview. The interview was used to ensure potential participants were
qualified to participate in the study, and had no previous experience of taking piano or any music
lessons. Those with previous musical knowledge or experience were excluded from
participation. In addition to explaining the procedures and the curriculum of the study to the
candidates and their parents during the interview, I performed several music activities to test the
candidate’s maturity of kinesthetic response, listening ability and reading ability. Since many
47
candidates were of a young age, and came from families whose primary language was other than
English, I also had to make sure students were able to speak and understand English sufficiently,
and were able to recognize the alphabet. At the end of the interview, the accepted participants
were asked to sign the assent form (Appendix A), and their parents were asked to sign the
parental consent form (Appendix B). as proof of agreement to participate the study. The
participants and their parents could choose either group or private piano instruction unless their
preferred instruction had no availability. If participants and their parents did not have a
preference of instruction, I would make an arrangement for them based upon the availabilities.
(3) Participants
Forty-eight participants in all were selected from the pool of applicants for this study, all
of them between the ages of 5 to 7. Twenty-four of the participants were girls, and 24 were
boys. Forty of them came from Asian families, and eight of them came from families
belonging to other ethnic groups, including Caucasian, Latin American and African
American. The higher percentage of Asian participants in the study can be attributed to the
researcher’s personal background and the consequent higher distribution of recruitment
information to local Asian communities. As for constituency of age groups, 30 participants
were 5 years old, nine participants were 6 years old and nine participants were 7 years old.
Teachers
Both group and private piano instruction (treatment) during the experimental period were
taught by the same two teachers. The first teacher was myself, an Asian female, with more than
ten years of teaching experience young children. The second teacher was a Caucasian male
graduate student at the University of Washington majoring in piano performance. While the
48
second teacher had no formal prior teaching experience, his musical knowledge, patience, and
positive attitude in the face of challenges served him well in teaching young beginners.
During the pilot study, the second teacher received one month of teaching training from
the researcher. During his training period, the second teacher studied the curriculum, observed,
and co-taught several private and group lessons with the researcher in the pilot study. After
formal lessons began, teachers continued to have weekly meetings to evaluate the progress of
instruction in order to keep the teaching content as similar as possible in both group and private
settings.
Class settings
Although group instruction and private instruction followed the same curriculum in this
study, the inherent differences between the two different types of instruction, may lead teachers
to make adjustments in class content. The two teachers were free in each context to choose
musical activities or material they found most conducive to the students’ acquisition of
knowledge and skills. Thus, the content of each instructional setting, while similar, was not in all
cases identical.
(1) Group piano instruction (experimental group)
Each group piano lesson consisted of three students and one teacher. To avoid the
side effect caused by the age gap between participants (presuming a generalized higher
degree of aptitude on the part of older children), I only included participants of the same
age in the same instruction group. Participants completed the 24 class sessions with the
same peers and teacher. Each class length was 50 minutes, plus 10 minutes of discussion
with parents following the lesson. Parents were encouraged but not required to observe
49
the lessons. About 50% of the parents observed their child’s lessons consistently.
However, all parents were required to participate in the 10 minutes post-lesson discussion
session in order to know the students’ progress, and to be able to oversee the assigned
homework.
As stated above, although teachers participating in this study were required to
follow the same curriculum for both group instruction and private instruction, the
different dynamics characteristic to the two types of instruction may lead teachers to
make adjustments to their class content. As Guy Duckworth points out in his article,
“Why Do You Advocate Three or More Teaching”, a group piano instruction can provide
“a social environment in which a student is supported and motivated, even challenged by
peers.” (as cited in Fisher, 2010) In a peer group setting, students not only learn from
their teacher but also from their peers through observing and imitating them. With this
understanding of the peer-group class dynamic, and due to the longer lesson session for
group instruction, teachers are able to introduce group activities reinforcing music
concepts, a lesson component inaccessible to those receiving private instruction.
However, since each group instruction involves more than one student, the class content
is less flexible, and the lesson pace is usually slower than that of the private instruction in
order to ensure that all three students in the group are able to make adequate progress.
Although several activities invited or compelled peer interaction in the group
lesson context, such as being a leader to create a rhythmic pattern for peers to follow, or
listening and correcting the performance of their peers, the curriculum for the group
lesson was not specifically designed for collaborative learning, as most activities still
took place within the traditional context of a teacher-directed model. In a collaborative
50
learning curriculum, students are encouraged to learn something together with
interaction. The teacher should not function as a knowledge provider but to help students
cooperate each other in order to reach their common goal.
(2) Private piano instruction (control group)
For the purposes of this study, the teachers offering private instruction only taught
one student in a 30-minute private piano lesson. As in the group instruction format, the
parents of the privately-instructed students were required to meet with the teacher after
each lesson in order to follow up on the progress of the participants and be able to
administer homework similar to that given to the group-instructed participants.
One benefit of private instruction is that a student receives the full attention of his
or her teacher. Meanwhile, the teacher can assess the student’s personality and abilities
more closely, and adjust the pace of the class in response to each student’s needs and
proclivities. Due to aspects of personality and psychology, some students might feel
more comfortable in private instruction, and thus make better progress than they might in
a group setting. A possible disadvantage of private instruction is diminished motivation
resulting from the relative lack of stimulation from peers. Moreover, since the lesson time
is shorter, there is less time available in the private lesson for activities designed to
reinforce learning as there might be in the group instruction setting.
Treatment
The treatment of this study refers to the 24 weekly piano instruction. All 48 participating
students were required to finish the 24 sessions of piano instruction before taking the posttest.
Students were required to take a weekly lesson; however, some students skipped one or two
51
weeks of lessons due to illness or unexpected family situations. Missed lessons from absent
weeks are made up in consecutive weeks until all students completed 24 lesson sessions.
Students missing group instruction sessions received 15 to 20 minutes of private instruction as a
make-up session.
It was not necessary for participants to begin the treatment at the same time. Therefore,
they usually began the treatment within two weeks from the interview, with the exception of
some group instruction units requiring additional time to fill all three spots in the group. After
participants started the first lesson, they were not allowed to switch to another type of
instruction. The entire treatment period began in September 2012 and was completed in August
2013.
(1) Curriculum
The purpose of the curriculum was to help students develop the five musical
achievements tested in the posttest: (a) music knowledge; (b) music reading; (c) aural
discrimination; (d) kinesthetic response; and (e), performance skill. To ensure the
curriculum was adequate for students with different preferred sensory learning styles (See
Chapter 1), each musical subject was introduced by multiple activities engaging the
visual, auditory and kinesthetic senses. For instance, when introducing note values and
rhythmic patterns, teachers might first present flashcards to introduce different note
values and pattern, and then invite students to “clap back” the patterns they saw, an
approach well-suited to the visually-oriented students in the group. Alternately, teachers
might first clap the pattern to familiarize students with the sound, and show the flashcards
later, an effective approach with aural-oriented students. Teachers might tap the
rhythmic pattern on students' shoulders or hands to let them feel the pulse before
52
presenting flashcards or aural examples, ensuring that the kinesthetic-oriented students
likewise had an opportunity to encounter the new concept in a manner befitting their
orientation. As the sensory learning styles are not necessarily mutually exclusive, this
multi-faceted approach provide multiple and mutually reinforcing opportunities for all
students to gain an understanding of the concepts presented. In a group class, the teacher
might apply all the activities when the class possibly includes students of different
preferred learning styles. In a private lesson, the teacher might focus more on one type of
activity dependent on the need of the individual student and their learning style.
All participants were basically treated by the same curriculum. However, due to
different learning paces and learning styles between students and classes, teachers were
permitted to change their teaching plans in order to help students master the class content.
To ensure that the teaching content of both teachers’ lessons were similar, I created a
standard goal for each musical ability identified above that teachers could help
participants achieve by the end of the treatment, and a sample of a teaching plan that
covers the 24 sessions was provided to the teachers (See Appendix C).
Although the class content could be slightly varied, all participants were expected
to achieve certain musical goals, as follows:
(1) All participants should be able to recognize basic music terms including time
signatures (2/4, 3/4, 4/4), four dynamics symbols (p, mp, mf, f), rhythmic notations
(eighth note, quarter note, half note, dotted half note, whole note, quarter-rests, and half
rest), bar lines and double bar lines, measures, repeat signs, staffs (five lines and four
spaces), and pitch notation ranging from bass C (C3) to treble G (G4).
53
(2) All participants were expected to identify music directions and patterns by sight
which include music direction (ascending or descending), intervallic distance between
pitches (as defined by step or skip) and music patterns (melodic and rhythmic).
(3) All participants should be able to identify different sounds, patterns and basic
forms by ear. They should be able to recognize the difference between high and low
pitches, loud and soft dynamics, meters, music forms (A-B form and A-B-A form) and
music patterns (melodic and rhythmic) by listening.
(4) All participants were expected to play back short melodic patterns, composed of
C-five-finger-patterns with intervals of 2nds and 3rds, and rhythmic patterns through
listening and sight-reading, composed of whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, and
eighth notes.
(5) All participants were expected to learn any piece within the notation range from
bass C (C3) to treble G (G4).
(2) Teaching materials
As stated in the introduction, the present study is designed to allow current piano
teachers to understand and evaluate the respective impacts of private and group lessons
upon the progress of students. In order to make the study more accessible to these
teachers, I chose one of the most currently popular method book series to be the primary
teaching material, as many teachers are already familiar and comfortable with its contents
and design. These books are equally applicable to use in both the private lesson and
group piano context.
54
I chose Level A and B of My First Piano Adventure by Nancy and Randall Faber
as the primary materials for the curriculum of the experiment. My First Piano Adventure
is a series of method books specially designed and intended for young beginners, and is
commonly used by many private teachers in the United States. The series has three levels
from A to C. Each level has a “Lesson Book” including a CD and a “Writing Book”.
Each unit of the Lesson Books introduces new music concepts and terms with pieces for
learning and performance that include the new terms. The CD, featuring all the playing
pieces contained in the Lesson Books, is convenient for students to review when
practicing at home. The Writing Books provide writing exercises to help learn the
musical terms and concepts introduced in the Lesson Books. The curriculum for this
study covered the content in Level A and Level B. I also selected a list of additional
songs and listening excerpts from ‘Making Music’, Grade-K and Grade 1 published by
Silver-Burdett for group activities, dancing, singing and play to help motivate their
learning interest and reinforce the music concepts presented in the lessons. Other lesson
supplements include flashcards that are utilized to display music symbols and signs such
as clefs, time signatures, dynamic marks, rhythm patterns and notations.
Posttest
Because no suitable test of musicianship and piano skills for preschool students currently
exists, I decided to create one with reference to several published method books for young
beginners, including several theory and sight-reading books. The test was reviewed by the
second teacher and two professors from the doctoral committee to ensure it was appropriate to
the age of the participants and the duration of the treatment, stringent enough to evaluate their
55
achievement levels accurately, and detailed enough to supply the data required by the
experiment. The posttest (Appendix D) was administered to participants after they completed
the treatment. The test is comprised of five parts corresponding to the goals of the curriculum
discussed above:
(1) General music knowledge: The first part covers the meanings of music symbols.
Participants were expected to identify the name of each symbol, and to be able to
recognize and correct symbols that are positioned incorrectly. Identification of single
notes presented on flash cards, note values, time signatures and meters were included in
this part.
(2) Music-reading: This part of the exam tests participants’ visual recognition of
melodic direction, intervals (steps and skips), music patterns and forms. Identifying
notes with the intervallic concept is also tested in this section.
(3) Aural discrimination: this part tests participants’ accuracy of audio perception
and its linkage to the corresponding visual image. Test items include the identification of
simple music forms (AB or ABA forms), time signatures, aural recognition of melodic
and rhythmic patterns, and the ability to recognize similarity and difference between
phrases of music presented successively.
(4) Kinesthetic response: this part tests multi-sensory connections through four
items: (a) melody playback; (b) rhythmic clap back; (c) sight-reading; and (d) rhythm
reading. Items (a) and (b) test the connection from auditory perception to kinesthetic
response. Item(c) involves visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities simultaneously.
Item (d) tests the visual-motor skill.
56
(5) Performance skill: To evaluate performance ability, participants were asked to
practice four assigned pieces without the teacher’s help. The difficulty of each song is
varied. Based on my evaluation, two of the pieces are relatively easy, one piece is of
average difficulty, and one piece is more challenging for the students. During the final
lesson, the four pieces and recordings of them were given to participants to practice at
home. The evaluation of their performance is based on precision of the participants’
execution of notes, rhythm, dynamic changes, and the overall fluency of their
performance, as determined by the performer’s ability to play at tempo without pausing
or stopping.
For purposes of evaluation and grading according to a grading matrix developed by
the researcher (see Appendix E), all tests of kinesthetic response and performance were
video-recorded.
Test length
The maximum time allotted for the posttest was about 90 minutes. In consideration of the
participants’ young age and the demands placed by the exam on their ability to concentrate over
a long period, the test was divided into two sessions of 45 minutes apiece. The interval between
the two sessions was one week. In the first session, participants played two of the four
performance pieces given a week prior to the test, and completed the test of music knowledge,
music reading and aural discrimination. In the second session, participants played the other two
performance pieces and completed the test of kinesthetic response.
57
Evaluation of the Tests
A perfect score on each part of the test comprised 40 points. Evaluation of the posttests
was completed by two judges. One judge was myself, and the second judge was a piano teacher
who was not involved with the study during the treatment period. However, not all parts of the
posttest were graded by two judges. Since the questions had only one correct answer each, for
the musical knowledge, music reading, and aural discrimination tests, one judge could grade
objectively. Scores of kinesthetic response and performance ability, in contrast, were graded by
two judges after review of the video clips. In the interest of neutrality, the videos were assigned
identifying numbers for the judges, so that the participants’ personal information remained
confidential. Both judges followed the same grading procedure (see Appendix F). As shown in
Table 3. 1, correlations between the two judges’ scores were strong (Cohen, 1988). Therefore,
scores from the two judges were averaged for use in further analyses.
Table 3. 1 Correlation of judges’ scores (N=45)
Grade Items Pearson’s r
Melody Playback .99
Rhythmic Clap-back .74
Sight-reading .86
Rhythmic Reading .82
Performance Skill .96
Note: Results are all significant at p <.01
Teacher Questionnaire
At the end of the experimental period, both teachers completed a questionnaire. The
questionnaire was designed to find out teacher’s attitude to the two different types of piano
instruction before and after the experimental period. Discussion of teacher questionnaire will be
presented in the next chapter (Appendix H).
58
Chapter Four
Results
This chapter presents the results of the experiment. The main purpose of this study is to
determine the relationship between the two types of piano instruction—group and individual—
and the respective musical achievements of young beginning piano students. To reprise, the
achievements selected include (1) knowledge of music; (2) music reading; (3) aural
discrimination; (4) kinesthetic response; and (5) performance skill. Each achievement outcome
was evaluated according to the scores from the 5-part posttest that participants accomplished
after the 24 weeks of treatment. The full score on each part is forty points. A higher score
indicates a better achievement. The study also inquired into whether other factors, including
teachers, as well as the age and gender of participants, would influence the result of the main
factor (modes of instruction) and the musical achievements cited above.
Hypothesis
The musical achievements of piano beginners receiving group instruction will have no
significant difference from piano beginners receiving private instruction. Additional variables
such as teachers, age and gender of participants should not significantly change the relationship
between the mode of instruction and the five musical achievements. Teachers, age and gender of
participants should make no significant impact upon the musical achievements of young
beginners.
59
Report of Results
Forty-eight participants from age 5 to 7 were recruited for the treatment of 24 weekly
piano instruction and 47 participants completed the entire treatment. During the posttest period,
two participants left without accomplishing the test. Therefore, results of this study are
dependent on the 45 participants (N=45) who completed the posttest. Among the 45 participants
who completed the treatment and the posttest, 22 participants were treated by group piano
instruction which is considered as the experiment group (nexperiment=22). Another 23 participants
were treated by private instruction which is identified as control group (ncontrol=23).
One teacher taught 22 participants —10 participants in the experimental group, and 12
participants in the control group. The other teacher taught 23 participants —12 participants in
the experimental group, and eleven participants in the control group. As for the age distribution,
27 participants were 5 years old, and 18 participants were between the ages of 6 and 7. Gender
distribution is as follows: 25 males and 20 females (Table 4.1).
Table 4. 1 Participant Distribution
Group
(n=22)
Private
(n=23)
Total
N=45
Teacher One 10 12 22
Two 12 11 23
Age 5 13 14 27
6 & 7 9 9 18
Gender Male 13 12 25
Female 9 11 20
60
Method of Analysis
I selected the factorial multivariate analysis of variance (Factorial MANOVA) as the
primary analysis method. Factorial MANOVA simultaneously investigates the relationship
between multiple independent variables and multiple dependent variables. It can also analyze
interactions8 between multiple independent variables, allowing the researcher to determine if the
relationship of one independent variable to dependent variables changes when another
independent variable is involved. Besides investigating the relationship between the four
independent variables and the five musical achievements, this study intends to discover if the
teacher, age and gender of participants alter the relationship of instruction and the five musical
achievements. These investigations are undertaken by examining the interactions between
instruction and the other three factors. Although MANOVA can analyze interactions between
the four independent variables of the current study, I was unable to test some of these
interactions due to the limited number of students. Therefore, interactions not related to the
hypothesis are excluded from the test models. Besides the four independent variables—(1)
instruction, (2) teacher, (3) age and (4) gender, the study only includes three interactions in the
test model—(1) instruction and teacher, (2) instruction and age, and (3) instruction and gender.
If any independent variable and interaction showed its significant association with musical
achievements in general, Factorial ANOVA—another analysis model—is employed to test its
relationship to each individual achievement.
8 An interaction between two factors occurs whenever the mean differences between individual treatment conditions
or cells, are different from what would be predicted from the overall main effects of the factors (p.482) (Frederick J.
Gravetter; Larry B. Wallnau, 2009)
61
Outliers
Three extremely low outliers9 were found in the achievement of performance. Figure 4.1
presents score distributions of the five musical achievements in the form of boxplots. The three
stars under the category of Performance represent three extremely low scores averaging about 10
points apiece. To examine whether these outliers influence the result, I tested two analyses—one
including outliers, and the other excluding them. Results showed no significant difference
between the two analyses. Since there is no outlier in the other four achievements tested, and the
three outliers does not significantly influence the result, I decided to include the outliers in data
analysis.
Figure 4. 1 Distribution of Five Achievement
9 In statistic, outliers refer to samples with extremely high or low scores which could affect the results.
62
Relationship of Instruction and Musical Achievements
The result of the Factorial MANOVA revealed instruction not significantly associated
(p>0.05) with musical achievements in general. This result supported the main hypothesis that
the musical achievements of piano beginners who receive group instruction did not differ
significantly from piano beginners who receive private instruction (Figure 4.2, Table 4.2).
Figure 4. 2 compares the score distribution of the five achievements between participants in
private instruction and group instruction. Boxplots (Figure 4.2) of the two instruction types
present the similar distribution between two different modes of piano instruction in all five
achievements.
Figure 4.2 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between Private and Group Instruction
MUSIC KNOWLEDGE
MUSIC READING
AURAL DISCRIMINATION
KINESTHETIC RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE
63
Table 4.2 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Group- and Privately-instructed Students
Group
(n=22)
Private
(n=23)
Dependent
Variables
M SD 95% CI M SD 95%CI
F
Effect
Size LL UL LL UL p
1 Music
Knowledge
34.08 1.01 32.03 36.13 32.77 0.98 30.79 34.74 0.88 .36 .02
2 Music Reading 32.99 1.13 30.70 35.29 33.77 1.09 31.57 35.98 0.25 .62 .01
3 Aural
Discrimination
31.15 0.96 29.21 33.10 30.88 0.92 29.01 32.76 0.04 .84 .00
4 Kinesthetic
Response
30.90 0.70 29.48 32.33 30.70 0.68 29.33 32.07 0.04 .84 .00
5 Performance
Skill
31.18 1.60 27.94 34.42 32.50 1.54 29.37 35.62 0.35 .56 .01
Relationship of Teachers and Musical Achievements
The result of the Factorial MANOVA supported the hypothesis that teachers did not
strongly influence to students’ musical achievements. The distribution of the participants’ scores
in the five achievements is similar between two teachers (Figure 4.3, Table 4.3).
64
Figure 4.3 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between Two Teachers
Table 4.3 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Students of the two Teachers
1st Teacher
(n=22)
2nd Teacher
(n=23)
Dependent
Variables
M SD 95% CI M SD 95%CI
F
Effect
Size
LL UL LL UL p
1 Music
Knowledge
32.69 1.00 30.66 34.72 34.16 0.99 32.16 36.16 1.09 .30 0.03
2 Music Reading 33.49 1.12 31.22 35.76 33.28 1.11 31.04 35.52 0.02 .90 0.00
3 Aural
Discrimination
30.73 0.95 28.81 32.66 31.30 0.94 29.40 33.20 0.18 .68 0.01
4 Kinesthetic
Response
31.00 0.70 29.59 32.41 30.60 0.69 29.21 32.00 0.16 .69 0.00
5 Performance
Skill
33.68 1.58 30.48 36.89 30.00 1.56 26.83 33.16 2.74 .11 0.07
MUSIC KNOWLEDGE
MUSIC READING
AURAL DISCRIMINATION
KINESTHETIC RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE SKILL
65
Relationship of Participants’ Age and Musical Achievements
Given that the result of MANOVA revealed the p value was very close to the significance
level (Wilks’ =0.726, F[5,33]=2.49, p=.051, 2=.27), I decided to run factorial univariate
analyses (factorial ANOVA) to find out whether the musical achievements revealed significantly
different between two age groupsaged 5 and aged 6 to 7. The result of the factorial univariate
analysis showed significant difference between the two age groups on three of the five musical
achievements—music reading (F [1,37]=5.74, p<.05, 2=.13), aural discrimination (F [1,
37]=5.52, p<.05, 2 =.13), and kinesthetic response (F [1,37]=6.19, p<.05,2 =.14). Since the
effect size (2=partial eta squared) of these three achievements are considered medium to large,
in the terms established by Cohan (1988)10, the study concludes that students at the age of 6 and
7 had achieved significantly better in the categories of music reading, aural discrimination, and
kinesthetic response than did students at the age of 5. This finding rejected the hypothesis of null
relationship between age and all five musical achievements.
Figure 4.4 presents the score distribution between participants at the age of 5 and
participants at the ages of 6 to 7. The boxplots below show that the scores of participants at the
ages of 6 to 7 in music reading, aural discrimination and kinesthetic response are clearly higher
than those of participants at the age of 5. Table 4 showed the p-values of music reading, aural
discrimination and kinesthetic response which confirm the significance of age.
10 Cohan’s suggestion of small, medium and large effect sizes: small: 0.01; medium:0.06; large: 0.14
66
Figure 4.4 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between 5-year-olds and 6- to 7-year-old
Participants
Table 4. 4 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Participants at Age 5 and Ages 6 to 7
Age 5
(n=27)
Age 6 & 7
(n=18)
Dependent
Variables
M SD 95% CI M SD 95%CI
F
Effect
Size
LL UL LL UL p
1 Music
Knowledge
32.42 0.88 30.64 34.19 34.43 1.11 32.18 36.68 2.01 .17 .05
2 Music Reading 31.48 0.98 29.49 33.46 35.29 1.24 32.78 37.80 5.74* .02* .13
3 Aural
Discrimination
29.43 0.89 27.75 31.12 32.60 1.05 30.47 34.74 5.52* .02* .13
4 Kinesthetic
Response
29.57 0.61 28.33 30.80 32.03 0.77 30.47 33.60 6.19* .02* .14
5 Performance
Skill
31.48 1.39 28.67 34.29 32.20 1.75 28.65 35.75 0.10 .75 .00
* indicates the value pass significant level (p < .05).
MUSIC KNOWLEDGE
MUSIC READING
AURAL DISCRIMINATION
KINESTHETIC RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE SKILL
67
Relationship of Participants’ Gender and Musical Achievements
The Factorial MANOVA revealed no significant difference in the results of the five
achievements between male and female participants. This finding supported the null hypothesis
that the variable of gender was not strongly associated to musical achievements. The distribution
of participants’ scores in the five achievements are similar between boys and girls (Figure 4. 5).
The p-values from Table 4. 5 also suggests that gender was not associated with musical
achievements.
Figure 4. 5 Score Distributions of Five Achievements between Boys and Girls
MUSIC KNOWLEDGE
MUSIC READING
AURAL DISCRIMINATION
KINESTHETIC RESPONSE
PERFORMANCE SKILL
68
Table 4. 5 Comparison of Musical Achievements between Boys and Girls
Boy Girl
Dependent
Variables
M SD 95% CI M SD 95%CI
F
Effect
Size
LL UL LL UL p
1 Music
Knowledge
33.99 0.92 32.14 35.84 32.86 1.06 30.72 35.01 .66 .42 .02
2 Music Reading 34.42 1.02 32.34 36.49 32.35 1.18 29.96 34.75 1.76 .19 .05
3 Aural
Discrimination
31.14 0.87 29.38 32.89 30.90 1.00 28.87 32.93 .03 .86 .00
4 Kinesthetic
Response
31.54 0.64 30.25 32.83 30.06 0.74 28.57 31.55 2.34 .14 .06
5 Performance
Skill
31.91 1.45 28.98 34.83 31.77 1.67 28.39 35.16 0.00 .95 .00
Interactions
Analyses of the three interactions—(1) instruction versus teacher, (2) instruction versus age,
and (3) instruction versus gender— could investigate whether null relationship between
instruction and musical achievements remain the same when comparing participants taught by
two different teachers, two age groups and between genders. Among the three tested interactions
in the Factorial MANOVA, interactions between instruction versus teacher, and instruction
versus gender revealed no significant relationship on the five achievements. These two null
interactions supported the null hypothesis that teacher and gender did not change the null
relationship between instruction and the five musical achievements.
However, interaction between instruction versus age was found to be significant (Wilks’
=0.692, F[5, 33]= 2.85, p<.05, 2=.30). This interaction required further study of the univariate
69
analysis (ANOVA) in order to distinguish which achievements were significantly related to this
interaction. The result showed the significant interaction between instruction and participants’
age only appeared in the achievement of Kinesthetic Response (F[1, 37]=12.49, p<.01,2=.25).
The large effect size (2> .14) assured the significance of this interaction.
Figure 4. 6 presents this significant interaction between instruction and age. Within
participants at the age of 5, participants in group instruction had a higher score distribution than
those participants receiving private instruction. By contrast, participants at the ages of 6 to 7
who received group instruction had a lower score distribution than those participants receiving
private instruction. When comparing participants in private instruction (white boxplots),
participants at the ages of 6 to 7 achieved much higher scores than participants at the age of 5.
In group instruction (grey boxplots with lines), score distributions between participants at the
age of 5 and those aged 6 and 7 are much closer. The medians (depicted by the middle line in
each boxplot) between the two age groups are close, but the distribution of the upper 50% is
higher at the age of 5 than it is at the ages of 6 and 7. The distribution of the lower 50% also has
a similar range between the two age groups (See Appendix H for a guide to interpreting
boxplots). A comparison of the mean scores between participants at the age of 5 and participants
aged 6 and 7 receiving group instruction shows a close similarity between the two age groups
(Table 4. 6). However, among those participants receiving private instruction, the difference of
mean scores between the two age groups is wider.
70
Figure 4. 6 Distribution from Kinesthetic Response between instruction and age groups
Table 4. 6 Interaction between Instruction and Age in Kinesthetic Response
GROUP PRIVATE
n M SD n M SD AGE 5 14 31.42 0.88 13 27.72 0.85
AGE 6-7 9 30.38 1.10 9 33.68 1.08
71
Results of sub-items from kinesthetic response
The achievement of kinesthetic response comprises four sub- items: two items for auditory-
motor skill (melody play-back and rhythmic clap-back) and two items for visual-motor
integration skill (sight-reading and rhythmic reading). As the null hypothesis was rejected in the
achievement of kinesthetic response due to a significant difference between two age groups, and
a significant interaction between instruction and age, I decided to investigate these four sub-
items further in order to find out which item(s) predominantly influenced the results.
In addition, several previous studies found students achieve significantly better on sight-
reading by taking group piano instruction across different age ranges (Hutcherson,1955; Rogers,
1974; Diehl,1980). Therefore, it is important to investigate whether the result of sight-reading is
supported or rejected from the current study.
To make this further investigation, I conducted another factorial MANOVA by using the
same model with four independent variables and three interactions. However, the dependent
variables were changed to (1) melody playback, (2) rhythmic clap-back, (3) sight-reading, and
(4) rhythmic reading. Result of the MANOVA showed a significant interaction between age and
instruction (Wilks’ =0.73, F[4, 34]= 3.19, p<.05, 2=.27). Results of further univariate analysis
(ANOVA) revealed a significant interaction between age and instruction with regard to (1)
melody play-back(F[1,37]=9.33, p<.01, 2=.20) , (2) rhythmic play-back (F[1,37]=5.57, p<.05,
2=.13), and (3) sight reading (F[1,37]=8.07, p<.01, 2=.18), but not on rhythmic reading
(Table 4.7).
Participants at the age of 5 in group instruction achieved higher scores on all four sub-tests
than the 5-year-old participants in private instruction, including the rhythmic reading component,
72
in which no significant interaction between age and instruction is evident (Table 4.7, Figure 4.7).
They also outperformed older participants in group instruction on three sub-items except the
rhythm reading. By contrast, participants at the ages of 6 and 7 in private instruction evinced
higher achievements in the categories of melody play-back, rhythmic play-back, and sight-
reading than other groups. However, in the category of rhythm reading, score from 5-year-old
participants in group instruction and 6- and 7-year-old participants in group and private
instruction appears more evenly distributed.
Although participants at ages 6 and 7 made significantly higher scores on the achievement of
kinesthetic response (Table 4. 4), the same result did not appear on the sub-items (Table 4. 8,
Figure 4.8). This difference is caused by the sum of score in the achievement of kinesthetic
response. The difference between two age groups are not significant, but participants at ages 6
and 7 in general achieved slightly higher scores on all four sub-items than participants at the age
of 5. Figure 4. 8 also shows that participants at the age of 5 had a much wider range of score
distribution in all four sub-item than older participants. This disparity of range is not obvious
when considering the mean score. By contrast, participants at ages 6 and 7—especially those
who achieved in the top 50% in sight-reading and rhythmic reading—were more tightly clustered
in a similar range. Therefore, when comparing the means from the sum of the scores (score of
kinesthetic response), the difference between the two age groups does become significant.
73
The results from the current sight-reading tests did not support results from the studies of
Hutcherson (1955), Rogers (1974) and Diehl (1980) which had concluded that participants in
group instruction achieved much better than those in private instruction, since participants at
ages 6 and 7 in private instruction outperformed in sight-reading. Findings of the better sight-
reading results from participants at the younger age in group instruction and at the older age in
private instruction, opposed Diehl’s findings for the older age group.
Table 4. 7 Comparison of Sub-items from Kinesthetic Response between Participants
at Age 5 and Ages 6 to 7
Dependent
Variables
Age 5
(n=27)
Age 6 & 7
(n=18)
Group Private Group Private
F p
M(SD)
[95% CI] M(SD)
95% CI M(SD)
95% CI M(SD)
95% CI Effect
size
1 Melody
Playback
Total
7.6 (0.39)
[6.83, 8.42]
6.1(0.38)
[5.33,6.87]
6.99(0.50)
[5.99, 8.00]
8.18 (0.49)
[7.20, 9.17]
9.34 .004* .20
2 Rhythm
Clap-back
8.07(0.24)
[7.60, 8.56]
7.49 (0.23)
[7.02, 7.96]
7.72 (0.30)
[7.11, 8.33]
8.41 (0.30)
[7.81, 9.01]
5.57 .02* .13
3 Sight-reading 7.76 (0.39)
[6.98, 8.54]
6.46 (0.37)
[5.70, 7.22]
7.33(0.49)
[6.34, 8.31]
8.51(0.48)
[7.54, 9.48]
8.07 .007* .18
4 Rhythmic
reading
8.39 (0.30)
[7.79, 9.00]
7.57 (0.29)
[6.99, 8.15]
8.75 (0.37)
[8.00, 9.51]
8.55 (0.37)
[7.81, 9.30]
0.88 .36 .02
74
Figure 4. 7 Interaction between Instruction and Age on four sub-items in Kinesthetic Response
Rh
yth
mic
Cla
p-b
ack
Me
lod
y p
layb
ack
Sig
htr
ead
ing
Rh
yth
mic
Re
adin
g
75
Table 4.8 Comparison of Four Sub-items from Kinesthetic Response between Participants at Age 5 and
Ages 6 to 7
Age 5
(n=27)
Age 6 & 7
(n=18)
Dependent
Variables
M SD 95% CI M SD 95%CI
F
Effect
Size
LL UL LL UL p
1 Melody
Playback
6.86 0.27 6.31 7.42 7.59 0.35 6.89 8.29 2.66 .11 .07
2 Rhythm
Clap-back
7.78 0.17 7.45 8.12 8.06 0.21 7.64 37.80 1.06 .31 .03
3 Sight-reading 7.11 0.27 6.56 7.65 7.92 0.34 7.23 8.61 3.46 .07 .09
4 Rhythmic
Reading
7.98 0.21 7.56 8.40 8.65 0.26 8.12 9.18 3.98 .05 .10
* indicates the value pass significant level.
Figure 4. 8 Score Distribution of the Four Sub-items between Two Age Groups
76
Teacher Questionnaire
After the experimental period, the second teacher and I completed a questionnaire
designed to investigate teachers’ attitudes toward both types of piano instruction (appendix G).
The questionnaire comprises three parts. Part I contains the first 10 questions aimed at our
expectations of teaching the two different types of instruction before taking this teaching
position. Part II (Question 11 to 28) focuses more on evaluating their attitude toward each
instruction. In Part III, teachers were expected to report back about their teaching experience in
this experimental study, and express how they see the changes between different age and gender
groups, and two different modes of piano instruction.
Before teaching this experimental research, two teachers had different expectations on the
two different types of instruction. The second teacher strongly preferred teaching private lesson
than group lesson before teaching the experiment. He also predicted private lesson is more
adequate for young beginners as they should be more concentrate in private lesson. Although I
had no preference on teaching either instruction, I felt group instruction should be more suitable
for young beginners because from my previous experience, students were motivated in group
lesson.
After the experimental period, both teachers had some different opinions. The second
teacher changed his viewpoint. Instead of private instruction, he considered group instruction is
more beneficial for young beginners although he still prefers to teach private lesson as he felt
more comfortable than teaching group lesson.
Before teaching the treatment, I considered group instruction should be more adequate
for young beginners. However, after the experimental period, I felt that the relative benefits of
77
the two different instruction modalities might correlate to the differing personalities of the
students. For instance, group instruction in general can easily motivate extroverted students who
find it easy to adapt to a new environment and interact with new peers. By contrast, for the
introverted students who are shy and find it difficult to interact with new peers, private
instruction might be a more comfortable instruction setting to them to begin. When students—
especially younger students—become hyperactive with their peers, and the teacher finds it
difficult to maintain control of the class, private lesson becomes a better choice, as group
instruction might impair their learning process.
Both of us shared several similar comments. For instance, we both found group activities
and games helped to increase students’ motivation. However, it was difficult to control the
lesson pace in group instruction, especially when there was a gap in ability between students, and
it was difficult to distribute equal attention to all students. In general, students at age 5 in group
instruction were more motivated than older students since they were more willing to participate
in activities and follow the teacher’s authority. By contrast, students at ages 6 and 7 were less
interested in joining group activities and more easily distracted by other peers. As for private
instruction, we both felt the advantage to be its flexibility in customizing the curriculum based
upon each student’s need. In general, students ages 6 and 7 progressed faster and had better
concentration in the private lesson than students at the age of 5.
78
Chapter Five
Summary and Discussions
Result Summary
A summary of the results is presented below:
The results supported the main hypothesis that the mode of instruction has no significant
relationship to the musical achievements of young piano beginners.
The non-significant interaction between the teacher and mode of instruction supported
the hypothesis that the teacher did not influence the null relationship between mode of
instruction and the musical achievements.
Comparison of musical achievements between participants taught by myself and the
participants taught by the second teacher revealed no significant difference. Therefore,
this result revealed that a difference in teacher did not introduce significant bias into the
participants’ musical achievements.
Participants at age 5 receiving group instruction exhibited significantly better kinesthetic
achievements than those who received private instruction. By contrast, participants in
private instruction at ages 6 and 7 exhibited significantly better kinesthetic achievements
than those in group instruction.
Participants at ages 6 and 7 achieved significantly higher scores in music reading, aural
discrimination, and kinesthetic response, than participants at the age of 5. This finding
rejected the hypothesis of a null relationship between the participants’ age and musical
achievements.
79
The results in the four sub-items constituting the achievement of kinesthetic response
(melody playback, rhythmic clap-back, sight-reading, and rhythmic reading) revealed that
5-year-old participants in group instruction outperformed those who took private
instruction in all four sub-items. Surprisingly, the group-instructed 5-year-olds also
achieved better test results on melody playback, rhythmic clap-back and sight-reading
than 6- and 7-year-olds who participated in group instruction. However, privately-
instructed participants at the ages of 6 and 7 achieved the highest average overall scores
in melody playback, rhythmic clap-back and sight-reading. Participants at the age of 5 in
group instruction and participants at ages 6 and 7 in both group and private instruction
achieved similar results in rhythmic reading.
The non-significant interaction between gender and instruction revealed that neither male
nor female students showed a preference for a particular instruction mode. The result
also supported the null hypothesis that there is no significant association between gender
and musical achievements.
80
Discussion
The preceding chapter, and the first part of the current chapter, have attempted an objective
presentation of data obtained by the current study. In what follows, I further explicate and
clarify the results, and attempt to illuminate and clarify the possible factors underlying them,
with reference to results obtained by previous related research, and how the current research
either supports or opposes the results of that research. I draw on related research in childhood
development and educational psychology to support the suppositions at which I arrive.
Instruction
As the two modes of instruction showed no significant difference regarding their
influence on musical achievements, the current study supports the first part of Hutcherson’s
study (1955) for participants that concluded neither private nor group instruction has a
significant influence on musical achievements of students at the ages of 7 to 10. Nonetheless,
this result opposes Rogers’ study (1974), which concludes that students whose age ranged from 7
to 9 years in group instruction had significantly better musical achievements than privately-
instructed peers. Of the research cited, it is the only study asserting that group instruction is
significantly more efficacious than private instruction in developing students’ capabilities. Diehl
(1980) attributes this anomalous positive outcome to the unusually long instructional exposure
time for Rogers’ group instruction (105 minutes in group instruction versus 30 minutes in private
instruction per week). Diehl found that with the sole exception of sight reading, the mode of
instruction had no significant influence on the five achievements investigated. Students in group
81
instruction achieved significantly higher scores in sight reading than students in private
instruction.
After considering recent studies reporting the significantly more positive influence of
cooperative learning11 models on students’ academic and musical achievements than that of the
traditional didactic model of instruction, I suspect that the apparent absence of a relationship
between the mode of instruction and musical achievements in both the present and previous
studies might differ if the curriculum were designed based upon a cooperative learning paradigm
appropriate for music instruction. Past research has cited the positive influence of peer
interaction upon children’s cognitive development such as logic, spatial reasoning, and social
perspective (O’Donnell, 1999). Cooperative learning also appears to have a positive influence
on academic achievements such as math, science and reading (Ebrahim, 2012; Kuntz,
McLaughlin & Howard, 2001; Gillies, 2003; Kutnick, Ota & Berdondini, 2008).
Much recent music education research had discovered that cooperative learning also
appears to exert a positive influence on musical achievements such as listening skills (Smith,
1980; Holloway, 2004), rhythmic reading (Johnson 2011) and music creativity (Wiggins, 1999).
However, the cooperative learning paradigm does not consist of merely putting students together
in a group setting and hoping for the best. The teacher is still required to teach children how to
interact with peers for more efficient interactive learning, as children tend to work as individuals
even when they are placed in a group (Gillies, 2003; Topping, 2005).
11 Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability,
use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is
responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for helping teammates learn, thus creating an atmosphere of
achievement (Balkcom & United States. Office of Educational Research Improvement. Office of Research, 1992).
82
In the current study, neither teacher was trained in conducting cooperative learning
instruction. Our students were not taught explicitly how to work together to solve problems.
Although both teachers designed several activities involving peer-interaction in kinesthetic
training, such as various rhythmic clapping games, or in peer review sessions in which students
listen to and comment upon songs they play for one another, the curriculum of the current
experiment did not intentionally incorporate elements of cooperative learning instruction. We
conducted the majority of the lesson components using the traditional didactic mode. It will
prove instructive to determine whether the result of the current study remains valid if future
research incorporates models of group instruction that incorporate more cooperative learning
strategies, such as problem-solving with peers, or learning a new concept by using “jigsaw
strategy”12.
Teachers
No significant difference of musical achievements was observed between the participants
taught by different teachers. The similar levels of achievement obtained by the students of either
teacher indicate that neither teacher in this experiment created biases due to personal preferences
for a particular mode of instruction, or that they exhibited a superior aptitude for teaching one
mode or the other (Appendix G).
The choice of teacher in the present study reveals no significant association with
participants’ musical achievements. This result suggests that a teacher’s cumulative teaching
experience will not necessarily impact the musical achievements of young beginners, provided a
12In this strategy of education, each student in a small group is assigned a different piece of information, and all
group members have to work together in order to achieve a goal or find an answer (Balkcom & United States. Office
of Educational Research Improvement. Office of Research, 1992)
83
new teacher undergoes sufficient teaching training and has a mentor to monitor and guide his or
her teaching. The stereotype that teachers with more years of teaching experience necessarily
teach more effectively has been rejected by previous studies investigating the correlation
between teachers’ experience and students’ achievement (Huang & Moon, 2009). For instance,
Huang and Moon indicated Wöβmann’s (2005) study of the experience of mathematics teachers
across 15 European countries and the U.S. only confirmed a positive significance of teaching
experience in four of the countries investigated. Results obtained from the remaining countries
either showed no influence of teaching experience on students’ math achievements, or even
negative coefficients. Several studies that controlled for students’ prior achievement also
showed no significant results for teacher experience (Croninger, Rice, Rathbun & Nishio, 2007;
Summers & Wolfe, 1977).
Age
The current study is the first among previous related studies to discover that different
types of instruction resulted in a difference in achievement for different age groups in at least one
category. As was presented above, the result revealed that among participants at the age of 5,
those in group instruction exhibited superior kinesthetic response than those receiving private
instruction. They even surpassed the older age cohort receiving group instruction in three sub-
items from the category of kinesthetic response. However, participants at the age of 6 and 7 in
private instruction significantly outperformed all group-instructed students in this category,
regardless of age.
Although not significant, a similar correlation between participants’ age and type of
instruction also appears in the other four achievement categories. The four boxplots (Figure 5.1)
show that participants at the age of 5 in group instruction achieved slightly better in these
84
categories than those in private instruction. By contrast, participants at the ages of 6 and 7 in
private instruction achieved slightly better in the same categories than those participants
receiving group instruction.
Figure 5. 1 Comparison Between Instruction and Age on Music Knowledge, Music Reading,
Aural Discrimination and Performance skill.
` ``
Mu
sic
Kn
ow
led
ge
Mu
sic
Rea
din
g
Au
ral D
iscr
imin
atio
n
Per
form
ance
85
Given that this finding did not occur in previous studies, and given that none of the
previous studies ever investigated students under the age of 6, the result is possibly due to the
difference in attitude towards working in a group setting exhibited by the various age cohorts.
Children at the ages of 4 to 5 appear to demonstrate significantly better persistence and
motivation to take on performative challenges when they are aware that they are working with
peers, even when they are not physically in a group with peers (Bulter & Walton, 2013; Master
& Walton, 2013). Preschool-aged children seem to be more motivated to engage a task simply
by being told that another child is doing the same task, or by watching a video of another child
engaged in the same task (whether or not that child is actually engaged in the task at the same
time) (Butler & Walton, 2013).
In my own experience as a piano teacher, when children reach the age of 6 or 7, they tend
to be less favorably disposed towards working in a group setting. This perception is confirmed
by related childhood development research (Kutnick, Berdondini & Ota, 2008). As part of their
effort to compare learning outcomes of differently-aged (ages 5 to 7) children engaged in
cooperative learning (working in groups) to those in traditional teacher-led pedagogy,
researchers conducted a questionnaire of children’s amenability and motivation to work in
groups, and their ability to collaborate and learn effectively with and without indoctrination in
peer interaction. In this experiment, children in cooperative learning instruction received
additional instruction in order to develop peer interacting skills prior to their work (experimental
group). Children in the traditional teacher-led class did not receive peer-interactive instruction
(control group). No difference in attitude toward group learning between the experimental and
control group was apparent in 5 to 6 year-old children. Nonetheless, at the ages of 6 and 7, the
children in the control group seemed less favorably disposed to group work, while those children
86
who had received peer-interactive conditioning in the group class became more motivated to
work in a group setting.
However, this apparent change of attitude with regard to group-work between children
under and above the age of 6 seems to contradict the development of peer sociability in children.
According to Parten’s study of children’s social play (1932), children’s development of
sociability begins with “nonsocial activity” (solitary play) and moves to a form of social
participation called “parallel play” around the age of 2 or 3. During the preschool years, children
begin to develop two more advanced forms of social interactions—“associative play” and
“cooperative play”—but the solitary play and parallel play mode remain a stable component of
their evolving sociability. When entering the period of middle childhood (ages 6 to 11), the
cooperative play mode gradually becomes prevalent as their communication and peer interaction
improve. Children typically begin to expand their circles of friends and social contacts
significantly.
Contradictions between what Kutnick, Berdondini & Ota (2008) found in their survey
and development of peer sociability could possibly be related to changing perceptions of self-
esteem and self-attributions of success and failure experienced during the years of middle
childhood. Research in childhood development suggests that children between the ages of 3 to 6
years old are “learning optimists” (Berk, 1989; Dweck & Elliott, 1983). Learning optimists
typically exhibit highly positive self-evaluations, and appear to be less concerned with the
opinions and judgments of others. They tend to over-estimate their abilities somewhat, and
believe they can achieve anything. And as they still strongly believe that past “failure” does not
forestall future success, learning optimists of this age typically exhibit more persistence in
attempting difficult tasks than older children. Instead of becoming discouraged by past failures,
87
they appear to understand these experiences as the necessary foundation of future success
(Siegler, DeLoache & Eisenberg 2014). Therefore, besides the natural tendency of this age
group to work willingly with others, their relative indifference to the opinion of others tends to
reduce shyness in the group setting. Their persistence in mastering a task by repetitive practice
assists them in maintaining their motivation when asked to repeat an exercise numerous time in
class.
When growing into ages 6 and 7, as the capacity for complex reasoning develops,
children’s perception of self-esteem appears to become more susceptible to such factors as the
opinions of adults, test scores, and self-comparison to peers. As they increasingly engage in
social comparison, children generally become more sensitive to the remarks and opinions of
others (Siegler et al, 2014). Some of these children begin to view a perceived “failure” as
insurmountable, and are more likely to give up when encountering difficulties or receiving
feedback they perceive as negative (Berk, 1989). Therefore, some children might opt out of
participation in group activities due to fears of “failing” in front of peers, or feeling inadequate
by comparison to the achievements of others. As children grow into late childhood, their self-
esteem tends to increase steadily, improving their attitude toward group work. While
speculative, these factors may help explain Diehl’s (1980) results of better sight-reading and
performance achievements from the older students who participated in group piano instruction.
Although some 6 and 7 year-old children become sensitive and less comfortable with
group activities due to a growing sense of self-consciousness, other children at this age, by
contrast, become more apt to initiate conversation and otherwise interact with peers. As it
happens, however—and both teachers in the current experiment can testify to this—their focus
on interacting with others sometimes disrupts their focus on the teacher’s instruction, possibly
88
obstructing their learning. Although the motivation of 5-year-old students to do the same work
with peers is high, due to their predilection towards the solitary and parallel play modes, their
desire to actually interact with classmates might not be as prevalent as in the older students.
Therefore, in a group piano lesson, 5-year-old students may focus more on the teacher and less
on interaction with their classmates. This may explain why both teachers in the current study felt
that it was more difficult to control the pace of the lesson in group instruction of students at ages
6 and 7 than it was with the 5-year-old students. Experiencing less distraction from social
interaction between peers, and exhibiting less inclination to initiate potential classroom
distractions, the 5-year-olds tended to remain more focused on following the instruction of the
teacher.
Distraction resulting from peer interaction may in fact be the major factor affecting the
outcome of the current study in which students at the age of 5 in group instruction outperformed
the older students in the achievement of kinesthetic response. Unlike the other achievements
tested by the study, which students can review and practice through assigned homework, practice
of kinesthetic response was conducted mostly during class. Therefore, if students cannot remain
focused when doing kinesthetic response exercises, due to disruptive social interactions in class,
the outcome of the achievement is directly affected.
Due to the shorter length of the private lesson, students spent proportionately less time on
movement training than their peers in the group lesson. However, without distraction from
peers, they were able to remain more concentrated and master the movement training. Despite
this, lacking the excitement of working with peers, and typically possessing a shorter attention
span, the 5-year-old students in private instruction tended to lose focus more easily. Moreover,
as their kinesthetic ability is relatively underdeveloped in comparison to that of their slightly
89
older peers, success in these exercises may well require more time on movement training than
could be provided in private instruction within the format of the present study.
In summary, changes of attitude toward group-working, changes of peer sociability,
development of self-esteem, and achievement motivation (the persistence in challenging tasks)
were obvious in children between the ages of 5 and 7. This may explain why the 5 year-old
students in the present experiment undertaking group instruction achieved at a higher level than
their peers receiving private instruction, and likewise, why privately-taught students at the ages
of 6 and 7 outperformed their group-instructed peers. The greater sensitivity to how others
perceive them might make 6 and 7 year-old students feel less confident, consequently
diminishing their motivation in the group instruction context. As there is no competition with
other students in a private instruction setting, it may be easier for students to build a closer
relationship with the teacher, and derive motivation from the encouragement of the teacher.
Although the current study showed a particular interaction between age and mode of
instruction, this result does not conclusively prove that group instruction is a better choice for 5
year-old beginning piano students, and less suitable for 6 and 7 year-old beginners, or vice-versa.
Other research has found that cooperative learning has a positive impact on children at the ages
of 5 to 7 in a general education context (Kutnick, Ota & Berdondini, 2006).
As this study did not employ a specific cooperative learning strategy, most of the group
works were completed under a teacher-led model. Although the instructors conferred on the
group work in progress, no attempt was made to control for or impose a particular mode of group
instruction. Therefore, the results of the current study may differ from a similar study employing
cooperative learning activities and instructors trained in collaborative teaching, applying a
90
uniform method of group instruction. Especially for students at older age, as they are more
inclined toward peer interaction, a cooperative learning curriculum may help them to remain
more focused than in the traditional teacher-led style of instruction.
Clearly, cooperative learning does not consist merely of placing students in a group and
expecting them to work together effectively. Students need to learn how to work together under
a structured curriculum (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Therefore, I recommend that
further research evaluating the comparative efficacy of group and private musical instructional
for beginning students of all ages, especially for the influence of a cooperative learning
curriculum.
Relationship between participants’ age and musical achievements
Regardless of the mode of instruction, students at ages 6 and 7 significantly out-
performed those at age 5 in the achievements of (a) music reading, (b) aural discrimination, and
(c) kinesthetic response. Results obtained in music reading and aural discrimination of notated
pitches in the present study show that most of the 5-year-old students are still developing their
ability to discriminate musical patterns and higher or lower pitches. However, by the age of 6 or
7, most children had already developed a clear sense of patterns and melodic motion (Campbell
& Scott-Kassner, 2006).
Although results revealed students at the ages of 6 and 7 achieved significantly higher scores
in kinesthetic response, further analysis of the four sub-items in kinesthetic response did not
show a significant difference between the two age groups. However, students at ages 6 and 7
scored slightly higher on the two sub-items⸺ sight-reading and rhythmic reading (p< 0.1).
Results of all four sub-items constituting kinesthetic response showed that items related to
91
visual-motor integration (sight-reading and rhythmic reading) correlated slightly to the age of
participants. However, the relationship between the age of participants and the development of
auditory-motor interaction was not as strong. This finding may corroborate the results of
previous research suggesting that development of auditory-motor integration occurs at much
younger age, and does not increase as significantly from the ages of 5 to 7 as does visual-motor
integration (Kager & Clark, 2015).
Gender
Studies have found different patterns of cognitive development between the genders
during childhood. For instance, in general, males outperformed females in spatial processing,
sensorimotor and motor speed while females are better at attention, word and facial memory,
reasoning speed, and all social cognition tests (Gur et al., 2012; Panasevich & Tsitseroshin 2015;
Satterthwaite, 2015). As research has confirmed that the playing of musical instruments is
strongly related to spatial processing and sensorimotor skills, it may seem reasonable to presume
that younger male students would attain higher achievements in music than females. However,
amongst a limited number of studies investigating the effects of music instruction (not piano
instruction) on cognitive development, most of them did not report difference between the
genders (Gromko & Poorman, 1998; Rauscher et al. 1997; Rauscher & Zupan, 2000). One study
that investigated the influence of piano instruction on cognitive abilities of young children
(Zafranas, 2003) found similar cognition abilities between boys and girls before they took piano
instruction. However, after taking one year of piano instruction (two lessons per week), boys
performed better on all tested cognitive abilities. They particularly outperformed girls on a
“hand movement task”, and made a significant improvement in the test of “Triangles”, a task
measuring simultaneous processing which required students to assemble several identical rubber
92
triangles (blue on one side, yellow on the other) to match a picture of an abstract design. By
comparison, girls did not make as much progress as boys in this task after taking one year of
piano instruction.
In their studies, Rogers (1974) and Diehl (1980) both investigated the interaction between
gender and the two different modes of instruction regarding musical achievement. The notable
difference only occurred in Diehl’s study, which found that group-taught male students
outperformed privately-taught male students in sight-reading and public performance.
The current study showed no significant difference in musical achievements between
male and female students. Neither mode of instruction favored male or female students.
However, male students showed slightly better results in music reading and kinesthetic response.
This finding corresponds to previous studies indicating males are stronger in spatial processing
and sensorimotor skills. Music reading is correlated to the ability of spatial reasoning, and
kinesthetic response require both spatial reasoning and sensorimotor skills.
93
Conclusion
Overall, the current study concludes that there was no significant difference in musical
achievements between the two modes of piano instruction. However, 5-year-old students who
undertook group piano instruction registered results in musical achievements superior to those of
the 5-year-olds receiving private instruction. Six- and 7-year-old students who took private
piano instruction achieved at a higher level than those who took group instruction. This outcome
is particularly significant in the achievement of kinesthetic response, but less obvious in other
four achievements.
This current study speculates that this result—not found in previous studies—may relate
to childhood development between the ages of 5 and 7 involving changes in attitude to group-
working, increased conception of self and the consequent growth of self-esteem, development of
peer sociability, and the differences of achievement motivation. The superior achievements of 5-
year-old children in group instruction may relate to the optimal motivation of working with peers
transpiring at the ages of 4 and 5 (Butler & Walton, 2013; Master & Walton, 2013). As they are
typically less sensitive to how others perceive them, they tend to be less shy in front of others. At
the ages of 6 and 7 years old, with increased engagement in social comparison, children tend to
increasingly evaluate themselves based upon how friends, teachers and parents see them—in
other words, they are seeking external validation. Their greater sensitivity to the opinions and
judgments of others, as well as their increasingly critical process of self-evaluation, may
constrain their motivation to participate in group instruction and thereby affecting their ability to
flourish in this setting. Especially those students who have previously encountered negative
learning experiences may come to view their “failure” as permanent (Berk, 1989). Experiencing
decreased self-confidence, these older students may be less willing to present themselves in front
94
of peers in a situation wherein they fear judgment. These students may feel more comfortable in
private instruction because the one-on-one relationship between teacher and student mitigates
worries of failing in front of other students.
Although the greater sensitivity of children at the ages of 6 and 7 to the opinions and
judgments of others may cause some of them to be reluctant to participate fully in group piano
instruction, they are nonetheless more apt to cooperate with peers in class, instead of merely
working on their own in the company of others, as the younger students tend to do. The
development of the propensity for cooperative play, and the ability to engage it successfully, is a
necessary component of the socialization of children. However, as is discussed above, the
growing desire for peer interaction may consequently lead to increased distraction and class
interruption.
On the other hand, as some children at the age of 5 may not have developed the requisite
social skills to effectively interact with peers, even in a group, they tend not to interact with each
other as much as older students. This tendency may explain why both teachers in the current
study found it easier to teach 5-year-old students in a group setting than it was for 6 and 7 year-
old students. Due to the unpredictable and sometimes uncontrolled interactions of the students,
teachers often had to make an extra effort to maintain focus and concentration in class.
Therefore, peer distraction may be another reason why 6- and 7-year-old students in the current
study in private piano instruction achieved higher scores in all musical categories. By contrast, it
is possible that 5-year-old students, experiencing less peer interaction than the slightly older
cohort, are more able to concentrate in the group setting.
95
The design of the curriculum itself may also affect the results. The group instruction
curriculum used in this study was not designed based upon the elements for cooperative learning.
Although it involved some peer-interactive activities, many activities are still led by teachers.
This type of instruction may be more suitable for students at the age of 5, as they tend to be
motivated by knowing they are working on the same tasks with others, and they tend to be more
willing to follow the teacher in the performance and accomplishment of repetitive music
exercises. Rather than proving conclusively that one mode of instruction is superior to the other,
the different results from the two age groups under group instruction may merely suggest that the
current curriculum is more appropriate for the younger students.
Students of age 6 and 7 may experience the repetitive music exercises as “childish”, and
may have less patience for them. The researcher observed that some of her older students
seemed to enjoy creating their own rhythmic patterns (in a light-hearted or even “silly” way,
sometimes), and share these original rhythms with peers rather than following the instructions of
the teacher explicitly. Observing the proclivity of her 6 and 7 year-old students to want to
interact with peers, the researcher suspects a cooperative learning curriculum may be more
suitable for group instruction of this age group. Under the provisions of a cooperative learning
curriculum, all group members are expected to work together in order to achieve a common goal.
Rather than serving a dominant role as “the font of information”, the teacher in a cooperative
learning environment functions as a facilitator of effective group work by encouraging students
to work together as a team and modeling appropriate strategies for so doing (Fisher, 2010).
Therefore, the cooperative learning paradigm may help students remain more focused in group
work, as each participant has a stake in the success of the group as a whole, and an awareness of
themselves as playing a part in the process. Cooperative learning techniques have been proven
96
beneficial to the learning achievements in both academic subjects and music trainings of students
of different age groups (Kirk 2000; Ginsburg-Block et a 2003; Kutnick, Berdondini & Ota, 2008;
Tsuei, 2012; Gerena & Keiler, 2012). Thus, the researcher suggests that further studies evaluate
the comparative influences of a traditional teacher-led curriculum versus cooperative learning
curriculum upon the musical achievements of students receiving group piano instruction.
To recapitulate, the researcher adduces several reasons possibly influencing the current
result wherein students at age 5 scored higher achievements in group piano instruction while
students at ages 6 and 7 achieved higher scores in private piano instruction. These reasons
include: (1) different attitudes towards group work. It seems easier to motivate younger students
by reinforcing the awareness that they are working on the same tasks, and at the same time with
other children (Kutnick, Berdondini & Ota, 2008); (2) growth of self-awareness. In the older age
cohort with their greater sensitivity to the opinions and perceived judgments of others, some may
feel reluctant and embarrassed to participate in group instruction (Berk, 1989; Dweck & Elliott,
1983); (3) changes of sociability. Older students tend to prefer being in a group that involves
more direct interaction with their peers. In contrast, younger students tend to have less peer
interaction, although they enjoy the idea of belonging to a particular group; (4) different
motivation of achievement. With less developed reasoning ability, younger students tend to
over-estimate their abilities. They also appear to be less concerned with others’ opinions.
Therefore, their experience of failure does not stop them from continuously challenging
themselves. By contrast, as the capacity for complex reasoning develops, older students tend to
value themselves based on the outcomes of their previous achievements and opinions of others.
Therefore, compared to young students, they might be less willing to accept challenges,
especially after encountering negative experiences in the past.
97
Working with others seems to be an important factor helping the 5-year-old students in
group instruction remain focused and attain achievements superior to those of their peers
receiving private instruction. This is especially true in the achievement of kinesthetic response,
wherein students in group instruction evinced significantly better results than those in private
instruction. Aside from the apparently higher motivation of the students receiving group
instruction, their greater persistence in repetitive practice as another important component of
their success. Due to the shorter lesson time, students receiving private instruction were far less
likely to experience equivalent practice time in class.
Students at the ages of 6 and 7 undergoing private instruction scored higher in all
achievement categories. This result may be due to greater ability to concentrate arising from
age-related cognitive development, and greater comfort in the private setting for those
experiencing impaired self-confidence, or for those who have become acutely self-conscious.
Significantly higher scores in the achievement of kinesthetic response than their colleagues in
group piano instruction may suggest that concentration is a more efficient pedagogical strategy
than repetition for children in this age range. Moreover, as private instruction allows the teacher
to adjust the pace and content of the instruction according to each student’s ability, the
curriculum of the current study in its present configuration may better facilitate the progress of
the older students. While the analytical approach of the current study amalgamates the
achievements of all the students, it was clear from the subjective experience of the teachers that,
as individuals, some 6- and 7-year-old students achieved a higher level under private instruction
than their peers under group instruction at the end of the 24-week treatment.
98
Recommendations for Teaching Strategies
(Based on the Result and Explanatory Theories)
Quite probably, childhood learning experiences influence aptitude and motivation for
learning later in life. It is thus important for a piano teacher to ensure that students have positive
learning experiences with piano and music so that they will continue to enjoy listening,
performing, and sharing music with others. In order to achieve this goal, the teacher should
realize that children’s learning outcomes are closely related to various factors such as different
learning models (visual, aural, tactile), pace of cognitive development, achievement motivation
patterns, age-related changes of sociability, etc.
Although the result of the current study does not definitively ascertain which type of
piano instruction is better in general, it does point to the remarkable scope and growth of
cognitive development experienced by students from the age of 5 to 7. Thus, regardless of which
mode of instruction is deployed, it is critical for piano teachers to perceive the developmental
changes typically undergone by children in this age range in order to provide appropriate and
effective piano instruction for them, whether as individuals or as members of a group.
In the view of the researcher, age-appropriate teaching strategies help motivate their
students achieve their best. The result of the current experiment and the research that informs it
appears to confirm this contention. For instance, when teaching younger students such as those
at preschool, kindergarten and even the first grade in a group setting, the teacher can motivate
her students by reinforcing the idea that they are all part of the same “team” (Butler & Walton,
2013; Master & Walton, 2013). As students at a younger age appear to be highly motivated by
the idea of working with others—regardless of the degree of actual interaction between them—
99
the teacher may encourage them to repeat one task as a group until all of its members have
mastered it. Teachers can utilize more repetitive activities for members of this age cohort, who
as we have seen, tend to be “learning optimists” more likely to attribute success to the degree of
their diligence than to their actual objective results.
When teaching a child at a younger age in a one-on-one lesson context, knowing that he
or she may lack motivation without the accompaniment of peers, the teacher can create a virtual
“study pal”. From my personal experience as a piano instructor, I found that using stuffed
animals as a surrogate lesson colleague, or telling the student about another student’s
achievement seems to help students remain focused and motivated. The stuffed animal allows
the child to feel as if they have a companion or ally besides the teacher to help them navigate the
stresses of the lesson, and its presence seems to help rekindle enthusiasm when the child’s
motivation has diminished. If the student appears reluctant to participate in the lesson or engage
a challenge, being told of how other students of the same age achieved a similar goal, he/she is
usually willing to follow suit, playing on the child’s innate desire to identify with a group of
peers.
As the cooperative sociability of students matures as they age, the teacher may utilize
more collaborative activities to help the older students in a group setting. For instance, instead of
leading them in the repetition of rhythmic patterns, the teacher can encourage each student to
think of a music pattern and lead the group in following his/her pattern. The teacher can create a
challenge that requires everyone to participate collectively in order to execute it successfully.
Requesting students to listen to their peers’ performances, and encouraging them to comment
positively can help reduce anxiety and nurture the love of performance. Especially for those who
seem to be shy or uninterested in interacting with their peers, such activities may help students
100
overcome inhibition and establish new friendships within the group. This would hopefully
increase the collective motivation of the group to participate fully in the lesson. By the same
token, students can lose focus due to excessive peer interaction (such as distracting
conversations, playing while others are playing, physical horseplay, etc.). For this reason,
collaborative activities can help students refocus because they understand that they need to work
together in order to achieve a common goal.
As a result of growing maturity, children aged between 6 to 9 have generally obtained
skills and knowledge sufficient to interact with adults more effectively. These years are often a
time of enjoyable and productive relationships between children and adults (Eccles, 1999).
Therefore, teachers may find it easier to teach older students in the private setting. The
increasing maturity of reasoning also allows students to discover solutions to their own
challenges instead of relying on the teacher’s feedback. Therefore, when teaching older students
in the private setting, the teacher can guide students to discover the right answers by asking
leading questions and allowing the students to come up with an answer. The teacher can also
begin to train older students to evaluate their own performance, in addition to the feedback they
receive from the teacher (which they tend to prize highly), thereby helping these students achieve
a degree of independence from sole reliance on an authority figure, and encouraging them to
trust in their own ability.
In addition to cultivating an awareness of children’s cognitive development, gaining an
understanding of the patterns of achievement motivation of students of varying ages can help the
teacher select appropriate teaching methods. Childhood psychological research has defined the
typical ways in which children undertake the performance of learning tasks (Berk, 1989, 2006;
Siegler, DeLoache & Eisenberg, 2014). In general, children’s achievement motivation can be
101
divided into two broad patterns: entity/helpless orientation and incremental/mastery orientation,
both of which are varied by the different self-attributions children make, particularly with regard
to their sense of self-worth. Determining which type of achievement motivation pattern a student
tends toward can help the teacher find the most effective and appropriate ways to motivate
students.
Children with an entity/helpless orientation mainly value themselves based on the
approval of others and the success or failure of performance outcomes (i.e., external validation,
perceived both subjectively and objectively, as in a grade on an exam), instead of considering
and appreciating how much they may have learned from their mistakes. As the self-worth of
such children is so dependent upon performance outcomes, they tend to avoid tasks they perceive
to be too difficult. Upon identifying an experience as a “failure”, such children can become very
self-judgmental and self-critical, developing the perception that they are “just not as smart” or
worthy as others. They can feel that they will not be able to attain success, no matter how hard
they try. Thus, when teaching a student with the entity/helpless orientation, the teacher can try to
reduce the intensity of the challenges they present in order to help the student develop his/her
self-confidence and motivation. When teaching in a group setting, the teacher should avoid
competitive activities that are prone to adversely influence the self-esteem of the child by a self-
perception of failure.
Children with increment/mastery orientation, in contrast, tend to evaluate themselves
based more on the quality of their own efforts. Similar to the young “learning optimists”
discussed above, learners with this orientation—of any age—believe their temporary “failures”
can be improved by sustained effort. Therefore, children with this pattern are more willing to
take on challenges and persist in the attempt to achieve their goals. Students with an
102
increment/mastery orientation are more amenable to being pushed out of their comfort zone in
the pursuit of learning and performance challenges. Thus, the teacher can introduce tasks and
challenges somewhat exceeding the student’s current level of attainment, thus inducing the
student to apply themselves vigorously to master them. However, for these students to maintain
their self-confidence and self-esteem, the teacher also needs to take care to not overwhelm the
student with too many challenges at once, or present them with challenges that far exceed his or
her ability.
Hutcherson’s (1955) and Diehl’s (1980) studies both concluded that while the two modes
of piano instruction—group and private—showed no discernible difference in effect upon the
quality of students’ musical achievements, offering group instruction does offer the pecuniary
benefits of generating larger profits for teachers, as well as being more affordable for students.
Due to the physical limitations of the research site used by the current study (the room could
only accommodate three students at a time), the profit only slightly exceeded those of private
lessons. Considering the extra time and effort that teachers typically devote to group class
preparation, the group lesson may not actually prove as profitable as suggested by previous
studies. There are, however, possible intangible benefits that arise from teaching group lessons.
In the group lessons of this study, the positive group chemistry generated by the interaction of
the members and the teacher was remarkable. In fact, it was quite rewarding for the teachers to
watch students enjoy themselves so much in the lesson. Other researchers have described a
similar experience in the group lesson context (Pike, 2012).
Although a group piano lesson comprised of less than four students may not prove as
profitable, for inexperienced teachers the small group setting provides an optimal opportunity for
teachers to gain experience in teaching a group. When they feel ready to teach a larger group
103
effectively, teachers can expand the size of the group to four or more. While greater financial
benefit is thereby possible, teachers should not oversize their group lessons, as this may
compromise the learning benefits to their students. The individual may feel “lost in the crowd”
in a very large group, and it is difficult for the teacher to be attentive to the individual needs of
many students simultaneously and provide the guidance each student requires to ensure they
develop proper skills and achieve their goals.
The development of preschool piano methods for both private and group instruction in
the United States has existed for more than eight decades, with popularity increasing greatly
since the 1990s. However, no prior research exists investigating the relationship between these
two different types of piano instruction on the musical achievements of students younger than
age 6. The current study is the first quantitative research to address this question. While the
information obtained by the present research is insufficient to generalize, the 5- year-old children
in the group setting achieved significantly better on kinesthetic skills than their peers instructed
privately. Three of their kinesthetic skills, melody play-back, rhythmic clap-back, sight-reading,
even surpassed the children at ages 6 and 7 in the group setting. These students also slightly
outperformed their privately-instructed peers in other musical skills such as music knowledge,
music reading, aural discrimination and performance. These results await future studies to
confirm their reliability. However, as a piano teacher who has mainly taught privately for more
than 10 years, through the experience of the current study, I discovered that group piano
instruction opens plentiful opportunities for teachers to be creative in devising activities, and saw
that group dynamics has the potential to motivate students highly.
104
This chapter has adduced several topics related to childhood development as possible
influences on the different results obtained from the two age groups involved in the current
research. Obviously, as individual children between the age of 5 and 7 develop at varying rates,
and in different, often very personal ways, the developmental traits described above should be
considered as general theoretical trends, rather than as an inflexible matrix equally applicable to
all children. In practice, teachers are likely to encounter 5-year-old students as mature as 6 or 7
year-old children, and vice versa.
Limitations of the Study
Although I tried to minimize possible side effects in order to make the results more
reliable, I found several factors that may possibly influence the results of the current study:
(1) As 40 out of 45 participants came from Asian families (predominantly of Chinese origin),
results of the current study might relate to the educational values maintained by members of
this culture. Future studies sampling a more diverse range of ethnic groups could obtain
consequently different and possibly more reliable results.
(2) The result of “rhythmic playback”—one of the sub-tests from the achievement of kinesthetic
response—would be more accurate with a pre-test before the treatment, as rhythmic playback
only requires the participants to replicate the rhythmic patterns presented. It is possible that
some participants possessed of an innate sense of rhythm may be able to perceive those
rhythmic patterns prior to any sort of musical training. Since all participants had no previous
music education, the researcher did not consider a rhythmic pre-test preceding the treatment
to be necessary. As “rhythmic playback” was only one of the four items constituting
kinesthetic response, the researcher assumed the influence of innate rhythmic abilities of
students on the potential variance in scores should be limited.
105
(3) Participants in the current study were not randomly selected, as all of them were required to
attend an interview prior to the treatment in order to ensure they were mature enough to
participate successfully in the treatment. Without an interview process, I suspect that the
result might vary due to the inconsistent maturity of 5-year-olds. As participants were not
randomly assigned to one of the two types of instruction, but allowed to choose a type of
instruction (in consultation with their parents), the potential influence on results of
participating an unwanted mode of instruction was effectively reduced in this study.
(4) This study only investigated the association of different instructional modes with an
individual’s musical achievements, but it did not examine the effect of “cluster” within
groups. The effect of cluster refers to the influence on an experiment from within a group,
deriving from the characteristics and abilities of the individuals of which the group is
constituted and how they relate. In group instruction, the personal chemistry between the
participants and the dynamics of the interaction between the group and the teacher may affect
the achievement of participants. As no related study evaluating the effect of cluster yet
exists, it should be investigated in future studies related to group music teaching.
(5) Although participants’ parents acknowledged their duty to ensure participants complete
sufficient practice at home, the current study did not strictly control the involvement of
parents. As previous studies have found a significant correlation between parental
involvement on students’ academic achievements. I therefore suggest further study in early
childhood piano instruction should control for parental involvement during the treatment, or
investigate the correlation between parental involvement and students’ musical learning
achievements in depth.
106
(6) On average, participants achieved fairly high scores in all five musical achievements
(Figure 4. 1). These results reveal the possibility that the posttest was too easy, making
the test less effective in measuring significant differences among mode of instruction,
teacher, and gender.
Suggestions for Future Studies
Departing from previous studies, the current study is the first one to investigate students
younger than 6 years old, and the first which encompasses the age range from preschool,
kindergarten to elementary school. Based upon the findings in the current research, the
researcher would like to suggest several topics for future studies:
(1) The result concluded that students at age 5 in group piano instruction showed significantly
better achievement in kinesthetic response than their peers in private instruction. Conversely,
students at ages 6 and 7 achieved significantly better in private instruction. However, since
the current study is the only one to investigate students from the ages of 5 to 7 with utilizing
a limited sample size, there is need for future studies to test the accuracy of the current study.
(2) Due to the possible skewing of the results and due to the unrepresentative demographic
composition of the participants in the current study—most of whom were Asian or Asian-
American—the researcher feels that similar studies be conducted with a more diverse ethnic
sample in order to test the influence of ethnicity and culture as regards the relative merits of
private versus group instruction on musical achievement of young children.
(3) Previous research has investigated the benefits of cooperative learning on the academic and
musical achievements of students of different ages. However, to my knowledge, no
107
quantitative research yet exists investigating the possible influence of cooperative learning on
group piano instruction on young beginners. In his volume of suggestions for group piano
teaching, Fisher (2010) also emphasizes the importance of cooperative learning, and shares
strategies to conduct cooperative learning in group piano instruction effectively. In order to
clearly understand the difference between teacher-led teaching and cooperative learning,
there is a need for further investigation into the difference between the two pedagogical
approaches in group piano instruction. To ensure the accuracy of influence of these two
types of curricula on students’ musical achievements, I recommend future studies that narrow
the age range investigated to encompass preschool, kindergarten, or elementary students
only.
(4) The current study and most of the previous studies aimed to compare the difference between
the one-on-one lesson format and the small group lesson. Only Rogers’ group lesson model
utilized a combination of a paired lesson (comprised of two students only) and a large group
working with Dr. Robert Pace’s group piano curriculum. Many piano teachers and studios
offer various piano lesson formats combining private and group piano lessons. For example,
three weeks of private study with one week of group lessons, weekly private and group
lessons, and the alternation of private and group lessons. These types of piano lessons are
popular in private studios, but their strengths and weaknesses have not yet been investigated
by previous studies. Therefore, future studies may investigate whether hybrid lesson formats
(combining private and group) are more beneficial than the traditional private lesson or small
group lesson, and exactly where those benefits might lie.
108
References
Altenmüller, E., Wiesendanger, M., & Kesselring, J. (2006). Music, motor control and the
brain. Oxford University Press.
Anvari, S. H., Trainor, L. J., Woodside, J., & Levy, B.A. (2002). Relations
among musical skills, phonological processing, and early reading ability in preschool
Children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(2), 111-30.
Balkcom, S., & United States. Office of educational research improvement. Office of
Research. (1992). Cooperative learning. (Education consumer guide; no. 1).
Washington, DC]: Office of Research.
Barbe, W., Swassing, Raymond H, & Milone, Michael N. (1979). Teaching through modality
strengths: concepts and practices. Columbus, Ohio: Zaner-Bloser.
Beethoven, J., & Pearson Education, Inc. (2005). Silver Burdett making music, grade 1.
Parsippany, NJ: Pearson/Scott Foresman : Pearson Education.
Beethoven, J., Pearson Education, Inc, Scott, Foresman Company, & Silver Burdett Company.
(2008). Silver Burdett making music. Grade K . Glenview, Illinois : Scott Foresman:
Pearson Education.
Berk, L. (2006). Child development (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Bilhartz, B., & Olson, J.E. (1999). The effect of early music training on child cognitive
development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 615-636.
Brown, R., & Palmer, C. (2013). Auditory and motor imagery modulate learning in music
performance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2013 Jul 1, Vol.7.
Bugaj, K., & Brenner, B. (2011). The effects of music instruction on cognitive development
and reading skills-an overview. Bulletin of The Council For Research In Music
Education, (189), 89-104.
Butler, L.P., & Walton, G.M. (2013). The opportunity to collaborate increases preschoolers’
motivation for challenging tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(4),
953-961.
Cain, K., & Dweck, C. (1995). The relation between motivational patterns and achievement
cognitions through the elementary school years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-),
41(1), 25-52.
Campbell, P., & Scott-Kassner, C. (2006). Music in childhood: From preschool through the
elementary grades (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Schirmer.
Costa-Giomi, E., Gilmour, R., Siddell, J., & Lefebvre, E. (2001) Absolute pitch, early musical
instruction, and spatial abilities. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 930, 394–96.
Croninger, R.G., Rice, J. Rathbun, A. ,& Nishio, M. (2007). Teacher qualifications and early
learning: Effects of certification, degree, and experience on first-grade student
achievement. Economics of Education Review, 26(3), 312-324.
109
Diehl, L. (1980). An investigation of the relative effectiveness of group
and individual piano instruction on young beginners in an independent music studio
utilizing an electropiano laboratory (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses.
Douglas, S., & Willatts, P. (1994). The relationship between musical ability and literacy skills.
Journal of Research in Reading, 17(2), 99–107.
Ebrahim, Ali. (2012). The effect of cooperative learning strategies on elementary students'
science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 10(2), 293-314.
Faber, N., & Faber, R. (2006) My First Piano Adventure Lesson Book A. Dovetree
Productions, Inc.
Faber, N., & Faber, R. (2006) My First Piano Adventure Writing Book A. Dovetree
Productions, Inc.
Faber, N., & Faber, R. (2006) My First Piano Adventure Lesson Book B. Dovetree
Productions, Inc.
Faber, N., & Faber, R. (2006) My First Piano Adventure Writing Book B. Dovetree
Productions, Inc.
Fisher, C. (2010). Teaching piano in groups. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garcia, S. (2002) Learning styles and piano teaching . Piano Pedagogy Forum, Vol.5, No.1,
http://www.mtnacertification.org/media/58356/Garcia%20Article.pdf
Gates, A. (1975). I: Use of peer group dyads in beginning adult piano classes. II: Program
notes for a doctoral recital (1970). III: Program notes for a doctoral recital (1971).
University of Washington.
Gilbert, J. (1980). An assessment of motor music skill development in young children.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 28(3), 167-175.
Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of
Educational Research, 39(1), 35-49.
Gromko, J. E. (2005). The effect of music instruction on phonemic awareness in beginning
readers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(3), 199–209.
Gromko, J. E., & Poorman, A. S. (1998). The effect of music training on preschoolers’ spatial-
temporal task performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(2), 173–181.
Gur, R. C., Richard, Jan, Calkins, M. E., Chiavacci, R., Hansen, J. A., Bilker, W. B., . . .
Rao, S. M. (2012). Age group and sex differences in performance on a computerized
neurocognitive battery in children Age 8−21. Neuropsychology, 26(2), 251-265.
Hayward, C., & Gromko, J. E. (2009). Relationships among music sight-reading and
technical proficiency, spatial visualization, and aural discrimination. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 57(1), 26-36.
Hetland, L. (2000). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 34(3–4), 179–238.
110
Heyman, G., & Dweck, C. (1998). Children's thinking about traits: implications for
judgments of the self and others. Child Development, 69(2), 391-403.
Holloway, M. (2004). The use of cooperative action learning to increase music appreciation
students' listening skills. College Music Symposium, 44, 83-93.
Huang, F. L., & Moon, T. R. (2009). Is experience the best teacher? A multilevel analysis of
teacher characteristics and student achievement in low performing schools.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 209-234.
Hutcherson, R. (1955). Group instruction in piano an investigation of the relative effectiveness
of group and individual piano instruction at beginning level (Doctoral Dissertation).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Jackson, A. (1980). The effect of group size on individual achievement in beginning piano
classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28(3), 162-166.
Jacobson, J. (2015). Professional piano teaching: A comprehensive piano pedagogy textbook
for teaching elementary-level students. Los Angeles: Alfred Publishing.
James, M., & Jackson, A. (2000). Celebrating 100 years of progress in American piano
teaching: Part I: 1900-1950. The American Music Teacher, 50(2), 29-32.
James, M., & Jackson, A. (2000). Celebrating 100 years of progress in American piano
teaching--part II: 1950-2000. The American Music Teacher, 50(3), 24-28.
Johnson, E. (2011). The effect of peer-based instruction on rhythm reading achievement.
Contributions to Music Education, 38(2), 43-60.
Kagerer, F., & Clark, A. (2015). Development of kinesthetic-motor and auditory-motor
representations in school-aged children. Experimental Brain Research, 233(7), 2181-
2194.
Kuntz, K., McLaughlin, T., & Howard, V. (2001). A comparison of cooperative learning and
small group individualized instruction for math in a self contained classroom for
elementary students with disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 24(3), 41.
Kutnick, P, Berdondini, L, & Ota, C. (2008). Improving the effects of group working in
classrooms with young school-aged children: Facilitating attainment, interaction and
classroom activity. 18(1), 83-95.
Lamb, S. J., & Gregory, A. H. (1993). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning.
Educational Psychology, 13, 19–27.
Lebert, S., & Stark, Ludwig. (1800). Grand theoretical and practical piano-school: For
systematic instruction in all branches of piano playing from the first elements to the
highest perfection.
Lee, H., & Noppeney, U. (2011). Long-term music training tunes how the brain temporally
binds signals from multiple senses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 108(51), E1441-50.
111
Loesser, A. (1954). Men, women and pianos : A social history. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Master, A., & Walton, G. (2013). Minimal groups increase young children's motivation and
learning on group‐relevant tasks. Child Development, 84(2), 737-751.
O'Donnell, A., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (Rutgers
invitational symposium on education series). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
Panasevich, E., & Tsitseroshin, A. (2015). The ability to successfully perform different kinds
of cognitive activity is reflected in the topological features of intercortical interactions:
Sex-related differences between boys and girls aged five to six years. Human
Physiology, 41(5), 487-502.
Parakilas, J. (1999). Piano Roles : Three hundred years of life with the piano. New Haven
[Conn.]: Yale University Press.
Rauscher, & Zupan. (2000). Classroom keyboard instruction improves kindergarten children’s
spatial-temporal performance: A field experiment. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15(2), 215-228.
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., Levine, L. J., Wright, E. L., Dennis, W. R., & Newcomb. R., L.
(1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children’s spatial-
temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19, 2–8.
Rauscher, Frances H., Shaw, Gordon L., & Ky, Katherine N. (1993). Music and spatial task
performance. Nature, 365(6447), 611.
Rhein, R. (1993). Johann Peter Milchmeyer's "Die Wahre Art Das Pianoforte Zu Spielen": An
Annotated Translation (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Richards, W. (1962). Trends of Piano Class Instruction, 1815—1962 (Doctoral Dissertation).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Rogers, W. (1974). The Effect of Group and Individual Piano Instruction
on Selected Aspects of Musical Achievement (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Satterthwaite, T.D., Wolf, D. H., Roalf, D. R., Ruparel, K., Erus, G., Vandekar, S. , . . . Gur,
R. C. (2015). Linked sex differences in cognition and functional connectivity in youth.
Cerebral Cortex, 25(9), 2383-2394.
Schellenberg, E. (2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15(8), 511-514.
Schellenberg, E. Glenn. (2006). Long-term positive associations between music lessons and
IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 457-468.
Schons, S. (2005). Piano Teachers' Attitudes about Piano Pedagogy Course Topics. (Doctoral
Dissertation) ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Schumann, R. (1860). Advice to young musicians.
Seipp, N. (1976). A comparison of class and private music instruction. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses.
112
Siegler, R., DeLoache, S, & Eisenberg, N. (2014). How children develop (Fourth ed.). New
York, NY: Worth , a Macmillan Higher Education Company.
Sims, F. (1961). An experimental investigation of the relative
effectiveness of group and individual voice instruction at the beginning level to high
school students (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Smith, C. M. (1980). The effects on listening perception skills of two approaches to
teaching music appreciation to non-music majors at the college level (Doctoral
dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International 41 (03), 978A.
Summers, A., & Wolfe, B. (1977). Do schools make a difference? The American Economic
Review, 67(4), 639-652.
Topping, Keith J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.
Tremaine, C. (1928). Guide for school piano class teaching. The Journal of Education,
108(14), 352-353.
Uszler, M., Gordon, S., & Mach, E. (1991). The well-tempered keyboard teacher. New York :
Toronto : New York: Schirmer Books ; Collier Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell
Macmillan International.
Wiggins, J. (1999). The nature of shared musical understanding and its role in empowering
independent musical thinking. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, (143), 65-90.
Zafranas, N. (2003). The effects of piano-keyboard instruction on cognitive abilities of
female and male kindergarten children, PQDT - UK & Ireland.
114
University of Washington
Assent Form
Group vs Private
Study of the Effects of Group Piano versus Private Piano Instruction on
Music Achievement of Beginning Piano Students
Researcher: Pai-Yu(Jessica) Chiu, Doctoral Candidate in Musical Arts.
Contact Information: (425)802-1669. E-Mail: [email protected]
Faculty Advisor: Prof. Craig Sheppard. Email Address: [email protected]
My name is Pai-Yu Chiu. I am doing a science project about how kids learn to play the piano. I
want to know which is better- taking piano class alone or learning the piano with other kids in
the same class. If you would like learn the piano, you are very welcome to join my study.
If you decide you want to be in my study, you get to choose what type of class you want
to do. You can take the piano class by yourself or you can be in a group class with other
kids.
Both types of classes will learn how to play piano. read the music note, singing, dancing
and playing games in the class, I will video-tape lessons, like making a movie. After you
finish all the classes in six months, your teacher will give you a little quiz to see how
much you learn. Your quiz will be graded by me and another teacher who does not teach
in this project.
By yourself: If you want to take the lesson by yourself, your class will be 30 minutes
long.
In a group: If you want to take lhe lesson with other kids, your class will be 50 minutes
long but you will play more games with other children.
Your teacher will give you some homework to do, ju.st like other music students. You do
not have to do anything different or special for the science project.
When I tell other people about my science project, I will not use your name. so you do
not need to worry about mc talking about you.
Even if your parent says it's OK for you to be in the study, you get to choose if you want
to do it 100. If you don't want to be in the study, no one will be mad at you. If you want
to be in the study now and change your mind later, that's OK. You can stop at any time.
115
My telephone number is 425-802-1669. You can call me if you have questions about the
study or if you decide you don't want to he in the study any more.
I will give you a copy Of this form in case you want to ask questions later.
Agreement
I have decided to be in the study even though I know that i don't have to do it. Pai-Yu
Chiu has answered all my questions.
Please write down your name if you want to participate this science project.
Signature of Study Participant Date
Signature or Researcher Date
121
Concept Songs Listening
Lesson
1
High/Low
Loud/Soft
Black Keys
Finger number
Monster Bus Driver
LH/RH Rainbow
High/Low
Loud/Soft
Mr. Rabbit & Snail’s
Dance
(Long/Short)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Two & Three Black
Keys
Steady Beat
Hi-Dee-Roon
Draw fingers and mark
finger numbers
Color two and three black
keys
Concept Songs Listening
Lesson
2
Review:
High & Low
Loud & soft
2 Black Keys
3 black key
Finger number
New:
Long & Short
Forte () and piano
(p)
Kangaroo Show
Katie Score
High/Low:
Magic Flute
Slow/Fast:
Vocalise
D major flute concerto
Loud/soft:
Grizzly Bear
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Finger#:
What’s in the Honey Pot?
Steady Beats:
Clap Wiggle & Stomp
Rhythm exercise:
Short & long patterns
Honey Pot, WB,12-13
LH & RH Twin Sound,
WB, 20-21
122
Lesson
3
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
3 black keys position
New
Forte & piano
Double Bars
Repeat Sign
Quarter note
Half notes
Wendy the Whale
Magic Three House
High/Low
Carnival of Animal:
Aviary & Elephant.
Kangaroo Boings (WB, 17)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Singing:
Charlie Over the Water
Steady Beat:
Watermelon Man
Draw quarter notes (copy)
Concept Songs Listening
Lesson
4
Reivew
Quarter Notes
Repeat Sign
Half notes
New:
Upward/Downward
Cuckoo Clock
Walking Song
Two Questions
Going Up & Down
Bumble Bee
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythmic patterns:
Flash cards
Music Map:
Busy Buzzy Bee
Singing:
I see a Moon
Rhythm exercise:
Quarter/half notes
Movement:
Here I Go (up &down)
Up & Down
Blinker at Night (WB,
24)
123
Lesson
5
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Up & Down
Quarter note
Half Notes
New:
Whole Note
Fast & Slow
Faster & Slower
Dinosaur Music Night
Raccoon’s Lullaby
I Like Song
Tucker’s Pals, WB, 25
Faster & Slower:
Get on Board.
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythmic Patterns:
Flash Card
Singing
Busy Buzzy Bee
Movement
Get on Board.
Turkey Talk
Lesson
6
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Whole Note
New:
CDE
Treble Clef &
Bass Clef
Old Pig Donald
Shepherd Count Your
Sheep.
High/Low:
Magic Flute
WDYH: Fast/Slow
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Flash Card:
Quarter/half/whole
notes CDE
Forte/piano
Mouse Rhtyhms.
(WB, 32-33)
Singing
Call & Response
Dinner Music
Movement
Up & Down: Frog Song
Supplements: half notes
Bass or Treble Sound.
(WB, p.36-37)
124
Lesson
7
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Treble & Bass Clefs
New:
Alphabet Order on the
piano: A to G.
Little Lost Kitty
Monseiur Mouse
Hot Cross Thumbs
Red Cat, Blue Cat!, (WB,
35)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythmic cards:
Quarter /half/whole
notes
Rhythmic Pattern:
Dinner Music
Singing
Frog Song
Call & Response
Dinner Music
Movement
Mr. Rabbit & Snails
Old Mac’s Chick. WB, 40
A Game of Beat. WB,41
Lesson
8
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Alphabet Order on the
piano: A to G.
Mary’s Rocking Pet
Jungle Wedding
Riding Escalator
WDYH Up/Down
K:4-21-24
Melody Playback:
CDE
Bonga
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Flash Cards:
CDE
Rhythmic pattern flash
cards with
quarter/half/whole
Notes
Upward/Downward
Here I Go
Movement:
Bonga (3 beats)
I feel Rhythm WB, 42-43
Alphabet Castle WB, 46
Royal Mix-Up WB, 47
125
Lesson
9
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Position of 7 keys
Double bars
Repeat sign
Treble clef & Bass
clef
New:
C Five finger pattern
Birthday Train
Wishing I Were a Fish
This is my C Scale
Tap with Song:
Caribbean Leap (K:5-33)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Pitch:
ABCDEFG
Sight Clap:
Animal Riddles
WB, 34
Staccato & Legato:
Mr. Rabbit & Snails
Boa Constrictor, WB50, 51
Lesson
10
Concept Songs Listening
Reivew:
C five finger pattern
New:
Measure & Bar line
Oh I Love Snack Time
Katie’s Dog Tucker
Hey Mr. Half Note Dot
Faster/Slower
Get on Board (3-35)
Fruity Faces WB, 45
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Sight Clap:
Sepherds, Count Your
Beats. WB, 44
Movement
Fuzzy Caterpillar:
Rhythmic patterns with
eighth-notes
Firemen on the C Scale
WB, 52
I Love Music Buttons
WB, 54
126
Lesson
11
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Measure & Bar
New:
Staff & Grand Staff
Eight notes
Quarter rest
Katie’s Dog Tucker
Wishing I were a Fish
A fish Tale
Spider’s Web (K:3-46)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythm
Eight Notes:
Naughty Tabby Cat
Rest, quick beat
Naughty Tabby Cat
I Look in the Mirror, WB,
55
Lesson
12
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Staff & Grand Staff
New:
Space & Line notes
Eensie Wensie Spider
Graduation Party
Music Expression
Vocalise (Sad)
Dmajor Flute Concerto
(Happy)
Spinning Song
Erlkonig
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythm:
Patterns with eighth
notes.
Review:
Naughty Tabby Cat
Melody Playback:
C-G
G-C
I hear thunder, WB, 56-57
127
Lesson
13
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Up / down
Forte/ piano
Bar line
Measure
Repeat sign
Clefs
Eighth notes
New:
Notes on grand staff:
Middle C
Giddy-Up Pony
Ode to Joy
The King’s Cat
The Queen’s Cat
Bam, Chi-Chi Bam
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythmic patterns from
Bam, Chi-Chi Bam
Create rhythmic
patterns
Upward/ Downward
Melody
Movement:
Bam, Chi-Chi Bam
Melody Playback:
C-G-C, G-C-G
C-D-E, E-D-C
Pony Path, WB, 6-7
Lesson
14
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Space and Line on staff
New:
Step-- line to space or
space line.
Note D & E
Tub Time!
Gliding Goldfish
Pumpkin Party
Tempo Change:
Get on Board
AB form:
Bonga (Review)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Draw Bar line
Step up and down
Melody Playback:
C-D-E-F-G
G-F-E-D-C
C-B-A (LH)
Rhythm
Line-Space Game
WB, p.10-11
Middle C, WB 12-13
128
Lesson
15
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Middle CDE
Step
Eighth notes
Quarter rest
New:
Middle F & G
Skip
Mozart’s Musical Pattern
Hot Cross Bun
Ice Cream Dog
Feeling/expression
Mozart Flute Concerto in D
Major, K314
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Rhythmic Patterns:
Quarter rest
Eighth Notes
Singing
If you are happy
Melody playback
skips
Middle D & E:WB 14, 18
Steps: WB 16, 17
Lesson
16
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Middle CDEFG
New:
A & B
Beautiful stars
Airplane Pilot
Toothy Fairy
Rhythmic Pattern:
WB, 19
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework Notespelling
Sight-reading short
pieces with CDE
Singing
Leaves
(up & down. octave)
Sight-reading exercise.
WB, 20-21
Exercise for middle F & G
129
Lesson
17
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
ABCDEFG
New:
Bass G
mf, mp
Tucker’s Secret Life
A-B Bop
Russian Folk Dance
Listening Game:
Same or not the same
melody.
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Notepspelling
Dynamic signs
Sightreading:
CDEFG
Singing
Bingo
Melody Playback:
4 notes patterns with
steps but change direction.
Ex. E-F-E-D
Tooth Fairy Visit, WB, 24
Treasure Hunt, WB 26
Lesson
18
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Bar Line, Measure
Dynamic changes
New: Time Signature
4/4
Sound of Beethoven
Gallop Pony
King of Land
Tambourine Party
Listening Game:
Identify dynamic changes
Identify the melodic line
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Sight-reading: WB, 30-
31
Flash card:
Bass G to Treble G
Melody Playback:
4 notes Patterns
Rhythmic clapback
Notes value;
WB, 28, 29
Bass G: Horse & Saddle,
WB 34
130
Lesson
19
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Time Signature 4/4
New:
Time Signature 3/ 4
Bass F
Knock! Knock
Hush, Little Baby
Wolfgang’s Theme
Ludwig’s Theme
Identify same or different
patterns; WB 38, 39
AB Form: Bonga
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Flash Card:
Bass F to Treble G
Rhythmic patterns
Sightreading:
Middle C Position:
WB 30-31
Singing
Down by the Bay
Melody playback
Rhythmic clapback
Draw bar lines: WB 32-33,
supplement copies
Sight-reading with Bass G:
WB, 43
Lesson
20
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Steps
Eighth notes
Bass F
New:
ABA Form
Tap, be Nimble
Picnic with Friend
Beethoven’s Door
Pilot, Land Your Plane
Scotland Bells
Identify Skip sound
Rig-Jig-Jig (ABA form)
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Identify Steps and
Skips
Sighreading with C
scale
Melody playback
Rhythmic clapback
Time Signature:
WB, 36, 37
Supplement homework to
recognize step and skip
131
Lesson
21
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Step/skip
New:
Bass CDE
C position on LH
Tie
I would like to go to Mars
Pearl in the C
Octave Blues
This is my C Scales
Find the same patterns in a
piece
Meter: 3 beats or 4 beats
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Sightreading:
Middle C Position,
WB 40-41
Rhythmic patterns
with
ties
Melody playback
Rhythmic clapback
Review of musical terms:
WB, 44-45
Bass C: WB,-49
Sight-reading: WB-51
Lesson
22
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
Step & Skip
Meter
Tie
Pet Dragon
Hide and Seek
Write, Beethoven
Same or not the same
Meter: 3 beats or 4 beats
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Notespelling
Sightreading
Rhythmic Pattern
Melody playback
Rhythmic clapback
Ties: WB, 54
Rest: WB, 58-59
Notespelling: WB, 52-53
132
132
Lesson
23
Concept Songs Listening
Review:
AB Form
ABA For
Hot Chocolate. Whipped
Cream Day
Rock It & Roll It
Alouett
Let’s Play Playback, WB
55
Pattern match
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Sight-reading on Left
Hand C five finger scale.
WB, 50
Notespelling
Melody playback
Rhythmic clapback
Rhythm Beads: WB 60-61
Lesson
24
Concept Songs Listening
musical terms
treble/bass clefs
grand staff
step/skip
dynamics
bar line/
double barline/repeat
sign
measure
time signature
notes/rests values
tie
Give students the four
pieces for posttest
AB form
ABA form
Meter
Reading Singing /movement Writing Homework
Notespelling
Identify direction
Find patters
Sightreading
Melody playback
Rhythmic clapback
Sightreading
134
134
Music Knowledge (40 pts)
I .Symbols
Please match music symbols bellow to their meanings. (15 pts)
Correct or complete each statement below
Treble Clef
.Measure
Quarter Rest
Loud
Bar Line
Soft
Time Signature
Whole Note
I am a quarter
note.
The I have is
a _______. I need
to hold______Beats
I am a
bass clef. I
make high/low
sound.
You
need to
STOP when
you see me.
My name is
___________ I only
come out at the end of
the song
I
hold___
beat.
135
135
Please re-arrange the dynamic order from soft to loud (3)
Soft Loud
Correct the mistakes (3)
Jill composed a short song, but she
makes 3 mistakes. First, she missed the time signature, second, draws the bass clef in wrong
place and third, ......can you find it? Please correct all the mistakes.
II. Meter/Counting (7 pts)
1. Please find the measures that are incorrect (2)
I am a S________
mp
136
136
2. Please write down the time signature (1)
3. Please draw the bar lines (1.5)
4. Each of the following measures has one note missing. Fill it with a (1.5
pts)
Notespelling with flash card (12 point)
Students have to identify the note on the flash card and play it on the keyboard.
137
137
Sight-readig/ Music Contour (40pts)
I. Notespelling (21 pts)
Circle one of the two patterns that match the alphabet letters. (7)
Circle the correct answer and write down the name of each note (14)
C D
E
138
138
II Pattern Search ( 18 pts)
1. Do the patterns in red move by step of skip? Do they move up or down? Please
circle the correct answers on each patterns (3 pts).
Step/Skip
Up /Down
Step/Skip
Up
/Down
Step/Skip
Up /Down
139
139
Find the Phrases (3)
There are four phrases in this short piece. (1) Which two phrases are the same?
connect each melody to the river that matches its shape.
140
140
(2) Which two phrases are very similar but not the same? ______ . Which parts are not the same,
can you circle it?
3. Please answer the questions below the piece (5 pts).
1. Please circle the measures that contain the rhythmic pattern
2. Among all the patterns you circled, which one has “SKIP” movement ? Please
write down
the measure #___________.
3. There are 3 measures that have the same music pattern, please mark an X on them.
Form (1)
Please look at Leap for the Pinata, is this music a AB or ABA form?
2 3 4
5 6 7 8
1
141
141
Aural Discrimination (40 pts)
Listen to the Music and circle the correct answers(8)
(1) Same | Different (2) Same| Different (3) AB|ABA (4) AB| ABA
Which Time Signature should you pick on the music you hear? (8)
1 2. 3. 4.
Choose one t that you heard (8)
1. (a)
(b)
2.
3.
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
4. (a) (b)
OR OR OR OR
142
142
Please circle the rhythm your hear. (8)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Music Expression (3)
(1) HAPPY |SAD (2) HAPPY| SAD (3) RELAX| NERVOUS
Listen to the music "Go Around the Corn, Sally" (3)
Which pattern is the first phrase_________. Which rhythmic pattern is the second
phrase________
Who sing the second phrase? A Lady | A Man| Children
A B
A
A
B
B
A
B
143
143
Kinesthetic Response(40 pts)
I. Melody Playback* (10)
(1)CDEDC (2) GFEDE (3) EFGEC (4) EDCEG (5) CEGFE (6) GGEDE
(C--G F E--D--)
(C--E G--E C)
II. Rhythm Playback* (10)
III. Sight-reading (8)
144
144
Rhythmic Patterns (10 pts. ABCD(1pt). EFG(2pts))
Use Rhythm sticks to tap the rhythmic patterns below
A.
B.
C.
D.
145
145
E.
F.
G.
Performance Skill (40 pts)
Students will be asked to perform a piece they prepare for the posttest. Students’
performance skill will be graded base upon the accuracy of notes, rhythm, dynamic,
articulation and performance attitude.
146
146
Appendix E
Grading Matrix
Music Knowledge Points Full Points
Music Symbols 21
Meter 7
Notes identity 12
Total 40
Music Reading
Notespelling 21
Pattern 18
Form 1
Total 40
Aural Discrimination
Form 8
Meter 8
Melodic Patterns 8
Rhythmic Patterns 8
Music Expression 3
Music Analysis 5
Total 40
Movement Judge 1 Judge 2
Melody Playback
10
Rhythm Clap-back 10
Sight-Reading 10
Rhythm Reading 10
Total 40
Average 40
Performance Judge 1 Judge 2 Hungarian Dance
10
Time to Celebrate 10
Running Down the Field 10
Waltzing 10
Total 40
Average 40
148
148
Dear Judge,
In the package you received please find a USB drive containing 45 folders. Each folder,
labled by a student’s ID number, includes five video clips, scores of the four pieces for students
to perform, and grading sheets for the test of Kinesthetic Response and Performance. In five
video clips. One video clip named “Movement” was recorded when the student performed the
test of kinesthetic response. The other four clips feature each student’s performance recording.
Please follow the “Notes for Judges” for grading standards found above each category of
the exam forms. When grading students’ performance, please use the scores included for the four
pieces to mark mistakes. For ease of evaluation, I suggest you use different colors of pens or
pencils to mark different types of mistakes. After grading each piece, please insert the number of
mistakes you found on each item table, but please leave the table of points blank. The researcher
will calculate the total points after you finish evaluating each students’ performance. When
grading Kinesthetic Responss, please follow the grading rules found above each sub-item. After
finishing, please enter the final scores in the boxes on the form.
After completing the grading process, please return to me all materials you recieved in
this package. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any part of this process.
Thank you so much for your help with this research project.
Sincerely
149
149
Hungarian Dance
Items mistakes Points
Notation ÷ 69 =
Rhythm ÷ 56 =
Fluency ÷ 56 =
Dynamic ÷ 5 =
150
150
Time to Celebrate
Items mistakes Points
Notation ÷ 80 =
Rhythm ÷ 76 =
Fluency ÷ 76 =
Dynamic ÷ 3 =
151
151
Running Down the Field
Items mistakes Points
Notation ÷ 60 =
Rhythm ÷ 64 =
Fluency ÷ 64 =
Dynamic ÷ 4 =
153
153
Grading Sheet for Kinesthetic Response
I Melody Playback
[Notes to judge: 1 point on item (1) to (6); -0.2 point for each missed note. 2 point on
item (7) & (8). -0.2 for each missed note and -0.2 for each missed beat.]
(1)CDEDC (2) GFEDE (3) EFGEC (4) EDCEG (5) CEGFE (6) GGEDE
II. Rhythm Playback (10)
[Notes to judge: Item 1&3: -0.2 points per mistake. Item 2, 4, 5, 6: -0.25 points per mistake]
CG F ED
CE GD C
(7)
(8)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
score
score
154
154
III. Sight-reading (10)
[Notes to judge: -0.1 point for a missed note; -0.1 point for rhythmic mistake]
score
155
155
IV. Rhythmic Patterns (10 pts)
[Notes judge: -0.1 point on each missing beat & rest. -0.1 point on wrong hand]
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
score
157
157
Teacher Survey
I had experience in teaching private piano lessons before accepting
the teaching position in this project.
Yes.☒
Years__10_____
No.☐
I had experience in teaching group piano lessons before accepting
the teaching position in this project.
Yes.☒
Years____3__
No.☐
Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree Before joining this research project,
1) I thought private piano instruction is more suitable for
young beginners than group piano instruction.
1 ○2 3 4 5
2) I thought group piano instruction is more suitable for young
beginners than private instruction.
1 2 3 ○4 5
3) I thought teaching private piano lessons is easier. 1 2 3 ○4 5
4) I thought teaching group piano lessons is easier 1 ○2 3 4 5
5) I prefer to teach private piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
6) I prefer to teach group piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
7) I felt students would be more motivated in private piano
lessons.
1 ○2 3 4 5
8) I felt students would be more motivated in group piano
lessons.
1 2 3 4 ○5
9) I felt students would find it easier to concentrate in private
piano lessons.
1 2 3 ○4 5
10) I felt students would find it easier to concentrate in group
piano lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
After teaching in this research project,
11) I feel that private piano instruction is more adequate for
beginners than group piano instruction.
1 2 ○3 4 5
12) I feel that group piano instruction is more adequate for
beginners than private piano instruction.
1 2 ○3 4 5
13) Teaching private piano lessons is easier. 1 2 3 ○4 5
14) Teaching group piano lessons is easier. 1 2 ○3 4 5
158
158
Please write down your answers to the following questions:
(1). Please compare the differences between teaching a group piano lesson and a private piano
lesson. (List some pros and cons from each type of instruction):
Group Lesson: It required more time to make teaching plan for each lesson and it also took more
energy to teach the group lesson than private lesson. However, it was quite
rewarding to see students get excited and motivated while we did games and
group activities. The advantage of teaching group lesson is that with three
15) I prefer to teach private piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
16) I prefer to teach group piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
17) I feel students are more motivated in private piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
18) I feel students are more motivated in group piano lessons. 1 2 3 ○4 5
19) Students find it easier to concentrate in private piano
lessons.
1 2 3 ○4 5
20) Students find it easier to concentrate in group piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
21) I feel that it is more suitable for a 5-year-old student to
begin with private lessons.
1 ○2 3 4 5
22) I feel that it is more suitable for a 5- year-old student to
begin with group lessons.
1 2 3 ○4 5
23) I feel that it is more suitable for 6- and 7-year-old students
to begin with private lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
24) I feel that it is more suitable for 6- and 7 year-old students
to begin with group lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
25) I feel that male students learned better in private lesson. 1 2 ○3 4 5
26) I feel the male students learned better in group lesson. 1 2 ○3 4 5
27) I feel the female students learned better in private lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
28) I feel the female students learned better in group lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
159
159
students and longer lesson time, I can make up various activities to help them
understand the musical concepts and help them re-enforce their motor skill and
performance skill.
The down side of the group lesson includes more difficult to control the
pace of each lesson, especially when there is a gap of ability between students in
one class. Students who learned slower felt frustrated and embarrassed more
easily, especially when they noticed other students were waiting for them.
Meanwhile, students who were more advanced got bored more frequently when
they had to wait other students to achieve tasks they had mastered. Therefore,
while teaching a group lesson, it is difficult to distribute equal attention to each
student. Students with slower pace usually received more attention from the
teacher.
Private Lesson: It is easier to build a close relationship between teacher and student. The
teaching pace is more flexible and it can be customized based upon each
student’s progress. However, without peers, the variety of musical games are
limited and some students seem to get bored more easily in the private lesson.
On the other hand, to some students who are very shy to interact with other or
easily to get hyperactive and distracted with peers, private lesson can be a better
lesson type.
160
160
(2). Please describe the difference between teaching five year-old students and six year-old
students in both group and private instruction.
Group Lesson: When teaching group lessons, it is easier to teach 5-year-old students than
teaching six and seven year-old students. Students at age 5 were more willing to participate
activities and follow teacher’s rules. It was more difficult to control the lesson pace when
teaching students at ages 6 and 7. Some of them were reluctant to participate group activities or
impatient when I asked them to repeat a musical exercise several times in order to help them
improve a certain skill. These older students also liked to chat with others during the lesson so I
had to take extra time to bring back their attention and keep them focus. Therefore, some five
year-old groups made better and faster progress in class than six and seven year-old groups.
Private Lesson: In general, students at age 6 and 7 made faster progress than students at the age
of 5. It seems to be harder for students at age 5 to remain focus in the private lesson.
(3). Please compare the difference between teaching male and female students in both group and
private instruction.
There was no obvious difference between two genders in general. However, I feel boys tended to
like competitive activities than girls in the group lesson. They tend to be more motivated when
there was a competition between peers. As for girls, although they also cared about whether they
achieved the goal or receive the sticker from the teacher, the idea of competing with others was
not as effective to them as to boys.
161
161
(4) Which type of instruction do you prefer to teach young beginners?
I like teaching both. From my observation, some students are more suitable to begin with group
lesson and some students can benefit more from private lesson. However, from my experience,
the group lesson seems to be more suitable for younger students because they are usually more
excited to participate group activities than older students. It really depends on each student’s
character.
162
162
Teacher Survey
I had experience of teaching private piano lessons before taking the
teaching position in this project.
Yes.☐
Years_______
No.☒
I had experience of teaching group piano lessons before taking the
teaching position in this project.
Yes.☐
Years_______
No.☒
Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree Before joining this research project,
29) I thought private piano instruction is more suitable for
young beginners than group piano instruction.
1 2 3 ○4 5
30) I thought group piano instruction is more suitable for young
beginners than private instruction.
1 ○2 3 4 5
31) I thought teaching private piano lessons is easier. 1 2 3 4 ○5
32) I thought teaching group piano lessons is easier 1 ○2 3 4 5
33) I prefer to teach private piano lessons. 1 2 3 4 ○5
34) I prefer to teach group piano lessons. 1 ○2 3 4 5
35) I felt students would be more motivated in private piano
lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
36) I felt students would be more motivated in group piano
lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
37) I felt students would find it easier to concentrate in private
piano lessons.
1 2 3 ○4 5
38) I felt students would find it easier to concentrate in group
piano lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
After teaching in this research project,
39) I feel that private piano instruction is more adequate for
beginners than group piano instruction.
1 ○2 3 4 5
40) I feel that group piano instruction is more adequate for
beginners than private piano instruction.
1 2 3 ○4 5
41) Teaching private piano lessons is easier. 1 2 3 ○4 5
42) Teaching group piano lessons is easier. 1 ○2 3 4 5
163
163
43) I prefer to teach private piano lessons. 1 2 3 ○4 5
44) I prefer to teach group piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
45) I feel students are more motivated in private piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
46) I feel students are more motivated in group piano lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
47) Students find it easier to concentrate in private piano
lessons.
1 2 ○3 4 5
48) Students find it easier to concentrate in group piano lessons. 1 ○2 3 4 5
49) I feel that it is more suitable for a 5-year-old student to
begin with private lessons.
1 ○2 3 4 5
50) I feel that it is more suitable for a 5- year-old student to
begin with group lessons.
1 2 3 ○4 5
51) I feel that it is more suitable for 6- and 7-year-old students
to begin with private lessons.
1 2 3 ○4 5
52) I feel that it is more suitable for 6- and 7 year-old students
to begin with group lessons.
1 ○2 3 4 5
53) I feel that male students learned better in private lesson. 1 2 ○3 4 5
54) I feel the male students learned better in group lesson. 1 2 ○3 4 5
55) I feel the female students learned better in private lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
56) I feel the female students learned better in group lessons. 1 2 ○3 4 5
Please write down your comment in the follow questions:
(1). Please compare the differences between teaching a group piano lesson and a private piano
lesson. (List some pros and cons from each type of instruction)
Group Pros: peer fun factor is good for student and can increase motivation, observing
and learning from others to learn better, develop more listening skill in order to play
together more successfully (peer collaboration is different than student teacher
collaboration), opportunities to correct or teach their peers, sometimes more willingness
to participate (group confidence), good moods/attitude can spread, competition benefits
164
164
(more motivation and excitement for winning games or beating their peer), performance
opportunities in the form of duets/trios.
Group cons: potential discouragement from differing level[s] of skill, students more
likely to seek fun over learning, distraction from peers, bad moods/attitude can spread,
any individual attention can turn into a lack of attention to the others, too fast a pace for
the slower learner too slow a pace for the faster learner, not as much time to ask
individual questions and more difficult (but still possible) to customize approach for
individual students within the group. Since pairing up certain students for group lessons
cannot always be optimized because of schedules, that can make it more difficult to avoid
unsuitable matches for forming a group.
Private pros: more time for the student to ask questions and get direct help, more efficient
keyboard technique demonstration, less distraction, easier for teacher to customize their
approach for the individual student, no other problems from peer environment, Student
can benefit from more duet playing with the teacher who is more accurate than peers in
group lesson.
Private cons: student can feel more intimidated from teacher's direct attention (or
shyness), no benefits from peer environment. Whatever effect the parent sitting in the
lesson might have, particular negative (distraction, fear of mistakes) might be stronger in
the private lesson.
165
165
(2). Please describe the difference between teaching five year-old students and six year-old
students in both group and private instruction.
Group lessons:
I feel the most important difference between the age groups is the ability to enjoy their
time with others and focus on the material without too much self-consciousness (rivalry exists
for both age groups, I think). In general, but not always, the vibe of the 6 to7 year-old group
lessons was a little more hesitant than the 5 year olds. In my experience, the 6-7 year olds were a
little less motivated for certain games and activities since perhaps they are more self-conscious
around their peers and maybe less easily pleased with the specific activities. [Some of these
tendencies might have improved by modifying the curriculum to better suit that age group]. The
5 year olds tend to have less inhibition for group fun in general.
Private lessons
I feel that the 6 to7 year-old students were more able to deal with a constant, directed
stream of attention from the teacher than the 5 year olds. On average, their communication with
an adult is better, and their attention functions a little better without needing as much fun to keep
going. For example, the 5 year olds tend to have less mature verbal communication so they can
benefit more from moving around more often or doing some game (less mature to sit still for
longer), while the 6 to7 year olds are more easily engaged with the ideas and conversation
directly. There should ideally be some combination of verbal/sitting vs physical activity for any
age group, but there is certainly a difference in the best amount of each between the age groups.
166
166
(3). Please describe the difference between teaching male and female students in both group and
private instruction.
I feel the boys are more susceptible to distraction than the girls in both group and private lessons,
and distraction is more of an issue in group lessons. I don't know how much an effect being a
male teacher has on the students, so I'm not sure how that plays into it. Also, aside from
personality, there might be an effect from the ratio of girls to boys in a group lesson (i.e. 3 boys
or 3 girls, 2 boys/1 girl, 1 boy/2girls)
(4) Which type of instruction do you prefer to teach for young beginners?
I prefer private teaching for young beginners because I feel more comfortable than with the
group lesson. I think the group lesson is more beneficial for many young beginners, but not
always. It depends on each student.
167
167
Appendix H
How to Read and Understand a Boxplot
A “boxplot” is a graph representing the distribution of a numerical data set based upon a
five-number summary: minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum. The
example graph below shows where these five numbers are located. First quartile and lower
presents the lowest 25% of data. Median refers to the middle of the data set. 50% of data is
greater than the median. The third quartile indicates 25% of data is greater than this value. The
range from the first quartile to the third quartile is called the interquartile range. The main
advantage of a boxplot is that it makes the distribution of a data set and the full range of variation
visually apparent.
.
Reference:
http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/box2.html
http://flowingdata.com/2008/02/15/how-to-read-and-use-a-box-and-whisker-plot/
Graphic from: http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/box2.html